Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Pensioner Poverty

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr. Paul Burstow: When I tell the House that
Older people are more likely to be living in poverty, whether this is defined as below half-average income or the receipt of means-tested benefits,
I am using not my words but those of Sir Donald Acheson in his report on inequalities in health, commissioned by the Department of Health and published last September.
In Britain today, one in four older people live on incomes that are less than half national average earnings after taking housing costs into account. However, it is often in the personal and the specific that we come to a better understanding of what such figures mean in practice. For some time, I have been a regular visitor to the Sutton Seniors Forum, which meets in my constituency every month. With a regular turnout of 160 people, it is one of the fastest growing of such forums anywhere in Greater London.
That interest prompted me to initiate this debate, but the final spur was a letter from a Cheam constituent which arrived in my constituency office last week. My constituent and his wife might not fall under the definition of poverty that I gave earlier, but the letter expressed sentiments that will find an echo in the constituencies of many hon. Members. Let me quote briefly from it:
We are pensioners aged 65 and 67, we have the state pension, a very small private pension, and pensioners bonds that mature this year, making up our total income.
He goes on to describe the impact of price increases, tax changes and interest rate cuts, which, in his words,
must be affecting many pensioners like ourselves. We have some hard earned savings but the interest is peanuts, so to meet the shortfall in income we will have to use our savings, but they will run out one day, and then presumably we live off the state.
Many older people are in the same boat as my constituents—living on a fixed income whose value is steadily eroding, while outgoings are steadily rising. That is the lot of far too many older people. That is where the Acheson report comes in; its recommendations stated that older people need higher state benefits to improve their living standards and, therefore, their health. A decent income is the foundation on which everything else rests.
What is a decent income? Last year, Age Concern published a report entitled "Raising the Wage of Retirement", based on work by Professor Eric Midwinter. In his analysis, Professor Midwinter came up with a figure

of £150 per week per person, but even that is modest in comparison to average earnings. At the time, only 27 per cent. of single pensioners had gross incomes at or above that level and only 28 per cent. of couples had at least £300 per week. The amount spent on the three basics that we all need—housing, fuel and food—takes a far greater share of poorer pensioners' outgoings. Figures suggest that a single pensioner who relies on state benefits spends more than half of his or her income on those basics, while a two person non-retired household spends only 37 per cent. When other hon. Members have the opportunity to speak, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) will be able to draw the House's attention to some figures on fuel poverty that he recently obtained. I could not believe the figures because their impact was staggering.
Professor Midwinter put the matter clearly. In the report, he stated:
Many older people cannot live 'ordinary' lives, simply because they have insufficient incomes. They can stay alive, they can exist, but they are effectively excluded from much of what we would regard as normal life.
What is to be done? The Government's answer is more means testing for more pensioners, but that will condemn hundreds of thousands of people to a life of poverty. Indeed, as many as 700,000 older people who are entitled to claim income support are losing out now—on average by £16 a week. How a means-tested benefit can be called a guarantee is beyond me.
What about pensioners who have incomes of less than £68 per week, but are disqualified from income support because they have savings of £8,000 or more? There are more than 600,000 such people caught in that savings trap. The Government's Green Paper, published last year, says a lot about income support, but very little about the basic state pension. However, the trends are clear; the steady erosion of the basic state pension began under the Conservative Government, when the link with earnings was replaced by a link with prices. That erosion is set to continue. In 1980, for every £100 of average income, the basic state pension amounted to £21; by 2010, it will have fallen to only £13.
The Government are often criticised for placing far too much weight and reliance on the work of focus groups and other research tools in determining their policy and direction. Would that it were so in the case of pensions. Last year, the Department of Social Security published research note No. 83 on pensions and retirement planning, which makes for interesting, but depressing, reading. That research found that most people aged under 40 believe that the state pension will disappear, and that older people do not see the state pension continuing for their children or for their children's children. However, almost no one—according to that research—wants the state to withdraw. People want the Government to stay in the pensions business for the long term. When it comes to providing a basic, bread-and-butter foundation pension, the research found that the fairness, universality and dependability of the state pension carried much weight with the vast majority of a representative sample of the population.
The research certainly bears out the views of many of the members of the seniors forum in my constituency and, I am sure, of a great many people in this country. A couple of quotes from the research document are especially relevant. It states:
Most people feel that a state pensioner should not need to claim income support—indeed, they see this as paradoxical.


It continues:
There is also often disquiet about the fact that Income Support thresholds can leave those who have worked to provide for themselves with a small occupational or personal pension worse off than those who have made no provision at all. This appears unfair and demotivating.
It certainly is. The Green Paper rightly raises the possibility of some changes being made to the thresholds. Will the Minister tell us when decisions will be taken and, more important, when those decisions will be announced to the House; and when changes that will benefit our constituents will be made?
I acknowledge that the Budget contains welcome improvements to the circumstances of pensioners, but one or two unfortunate, and perhaps unintended, signals were sent to older people. Take the new 10p tax rate: it delivered good headlines on Budget day, but the small print revealed that pensioners with small incomes from savings were not to benefit from the new tax rate. Almost 1 million older people will continue to pay 20p of every pound of savings income in tax. The savings to the Government derived from not extending the benefit of the new tax rate is only £55 million. I hope that the Minister will assure the House today that the Government remain open-minded and are willing to consider the representations from a wide range of organisations, not least Age Concern. I wonder how much, or how little, the Treasury consulted the Department of Social Security on the new 10p rate. What message should older people take from their exclusion from that tax rate?
Another issue that focus groups picked out was the belief that British pensioners do not fare well by European standards. That is hardly surprising, because it is true: average incomes of older people in the UK are lower as a proportion of average income of the total population than in most other European countries. Older people in this country are over-represented among the poorest 30 per cent. of the population compared with older people in other European countries.
The Budget can best be described as a bit of a curate's egg for pensioners—good in parts. The basic state pension remains, but the earnings link was broken by the Conservatives in 1980s. To restore that link fully and catch up from the time it was broken would cost £12 billion. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raised that matter on Monday during Social Security questions, and the Minister of State made it clear that restoring the earnings link for the basic state pension was not an option that the Government would consider. To be honest, I doubt that Liberal Democrat Front Benchers are likely to declare a commitment to such a policy either. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that, had the link been maintained, a single pensioner would today have a pension of £94.50 per week.
The minimum income guarantee is income support by another name—means-testing pure, but not simple. However, even after the downward revision of the figure, we know that 700,000 older people will not claim that to which they are entitled. The Government have initiated a series of pilots to try to boost take-up, and that is welcome. I hope the Minister will give the House an update on how the pilots are progressing—it would be

interesting to know what take-up rate the Minister believes can be achieved. If take-up is low, the minimum income guarantee is no guarantee at all.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Does my hon. Friend agree that a new category of poor pensioners consists of widows who thought that they had been left well-off by their husbands? The dividends they receive from invested income has now dwindled and, because of that, the consequences of any structural damage to their houses, such as a leaking roof, can be that they have no income at all. Does my hon. Friend agree that that category of pensioner has never been adequately addressed by the Government?

Mr. Burstow: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Some people who are described as asset-rich but who live on low incomes are caught by the way in which the current income support system operates. I hope that the Government will consider how to address that problem; if they do not, they will condemn many of our constituents to lives of poverty and increasing desperation as their properties deteriorate around them.
From my experience of attending meetings of the seniors forum and other gatherings of older people in my constituency, I know that an issue that often provokes anger, outrage and a sense of frustration is the age addition at the age of 80—the extra 25p which appears in one's pension book on one's 80th birthday. It is not even sufficient to pay for a first-class stamp to stick on the letter that expresses one's opinion, whether positive or negative, and it has remained unchanged since 1971.
Evidence collected by my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon from written parliamentary answers makes it plain that extra financial help would be best targeted on older pensioners. The poorest pensioners are older pensioners, and women pensioners are even poorer than men. According to the most recent figures, for 1996–97, pensioner couples where the man was over 75 had a net income of £226 per week, compared with £259 net income for those under 75; and while a single male pensioner had an average net income of £141, a female pensioner had to live on £126. That is why I strongly support the development of a pensions policy that targets more help on older pensioners. Liberal Democrat policies to increase the state pension for the over-75s by £3 a week and for the over-80s by £5 a week represent a good step in the right direction. There is no danger of low take-up and no stigma, and administration costs would be low, but the measure would be effective and get help to far more people than the so-called minimum income guarantee.
When preparing for today's debate, I came across a very interesting speech made at a conference last September by Chris Daykin, the UK Government Actuary. He put the issues very clearly, saying:
In the UK, where the level of flat-rate social security provision is relatively low, public opinion seems to favour raising the basic pension to a more realistic level, rather than relying on means-tested top-ups.
He must have been reading the findings of the Government's focus group work, because the research demonstrates strong support across all age groups for a decent pension. The research found that working participants in the focus group were willing to pay more national insurance to pay for an increase in the basic state pension of at least £10 per week, and even as much as £30 per week, for a single pensioner.
The final issue I want to raise during this debate is that of long-term care. I realise that that is not one of the Minister's direct responsibilities, but I hope that he will be able to say a few words on the subject.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Before the hon. Gentleman goes on to the subject of long-term care, I should like to compliment him on his excellent research and tell him that I support the thrust of his argument. One constituent of mine has only a 40 per cent. pension, because he did a great deal of voluntary work overseas. He put some money aside in savings and does not qualify for income support, although he does receive housing benefit. However, his income has now fallen by 20 per cent. Are there not many people like my constituent in the country? Should not the Government reconsider the way in which they deal with pensioners who tried to provide for their retirement, but who are now penalised for having done so?

Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman's constituent could represent many others who, for one reason or another, find themselves without a full basic state pension, despite the important contribution that they have made to society. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon has tabled written questions on that subject and obtained detailed statistics that I do not have at my fingertips this morning. I hope that the Minister will take account of the point raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and ensure that it is considered during the consultation on the Green Paper.
Returning to the issue of long-term care, this week alone about 1,400 older people will be forced to sell their home to pay for their care, and the emotions that that provokes range from bewilderment to anger. There is a real sense of betrayal—those people have paid in throughout their lives, but when they need the state to support them, it is not there. The royal commission reported at the end of February and its report concludes that there is no demographic time bomb and that the costs of care are affordable. The royal commission also supported an approach to paying for long-term care that is based on some kind of risk pooling. The current situation whereby people must rely on income or savings is neither efficient nor fair owing to the risk and the sums involved. Finally, the royal commission believes that most efficient way of pooling risk is through general taxation, based on need rather than wealth.
The Government have said that they will debate the royal commission's recommendations, and I hope that the House will soon have an opportunity to consider the matter in greater depth. Time is pressing, and uncertainty about the future funding of long-term care must be ended quickly. Decisions need to be made. The absence of a clear timetable from the Government has fuelled widespread cynicism about Ministers' intentions in this area. How soon does the Minister expect action from the Government?
I am grateful for this opportunity to air several issues affecting my pensioner constituents. I hope that the Minister will say something about the 10p rate, the income support take-up pilots, the derisory 25p extra per week for the over-80s and the urgent need for a clear timetable for decisions on long-term care. I shall finish where I started by quoting from the letter of my constituent:
We are not moaning money grabbing people that drive a large car, or travel the world two or three times a year. nor can we afford private health care. All we want is to be able to live the rest of our

lives in some degree of comfort, not living off the state, not living off my children, and if we do need hospital treatment it will be available.
That is a reasonable request and I hope that the Government will meet it.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: The House has listened carefully to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), whom I congratulate on introducing this subject this morning. However, the hon. Gentleman had difficulty in congratulating the Government on their achievements in assisting pensioners over the past two years. I think we should congratulate the Government on their strenuous efforts to help old and disabled people in receipt of pensions.
The Government's first act was to cut value added tax on domestic fuel bills. While that cut applied across the board, it was particularly important for people on pensions. The Government have also increased substantially the winter fuel allowance. Under the Tories, old people had to suffer seven days of temperatures below freezing before they qualified for £7 or £8 to assist with their fuel bills. A winter fuel payment of £100 is now paid to pensioners.
The Government have abolished charging for pensioner eye tests. The Liberals used to complain loudly about such charges, but the hon. Gentleman did not mention that reform in his speech. The Government have offered help to the poorest pensioners in the Budget by reinstating the link with earnings. That is a step in the right direction, and I know that the Government will continue down that road.

Mr. David Rendel: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Government's assistance to the poorest pensioners through continuation of the link with earnings. He is; presumably referring to the link with earnings through the minimum income guarantee. Is he aware—as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) made clear a moment ago—that the poorest pensioners do not receive income support, even though they are eligible for it? Therefore, they will not be helped by that link with earnings.

Mr. O'Brien: The Liberals will clearly not accept any move to strengthen benefits and to help eradicate pensioner poverty. The Government have introduced several measures that benefit the poorest pensioners. For example, the Government decided recently to compensate former mine workers whose health was broken by the conditions in which they worked underground. Some 100,000 retired mine workers—many of them my constituents—Will receive the largest compensation payment ever made in this country. The Government are keeping their promises, and these issues are worth mentioning in this debate.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that compensation was awarded after a long, hard-fought and ultimately successful High Court action?

Mr. O'Brien: Indeed, and I congratulate the mine workers who pioneered that claim. However, credit must go to the Government for not challenging that decision and for establishing the means of awarding that compensation.
There is still much to be done to improve the quality of life of old and disabled pensioners and to tackle pensioner poverty. After 18 years of Tory Government, which took so much away from our old people, pensioner poverty remains. I am pleased to have an opportunity this morning to express views on behalf of my constituents.
The Government must have regard to the gross inequality of the concessionary television licence scheme, which is part of the pensioner poverty issue. The concessionary television licence scheme required urgent review, and I am pleased that the Government have kept their promise and are in the process of that analysis. However, I plead with the Government to treat all old people equally under that scheme, as occurs with the winter fuel allowance. Many old people cannot afford BSkyB, so they miss out on those programmes that used to be broadcast on terrestrial television. Since BSkyB purchased the television rights of major sporting events, many of my constituents who are interested in sport have difficulty viewing those programmes. Television is the only means of entertainment for many old people, and I congratulate the Government on taking the initiative and deciding to review the concessionary television licence scheme. Let us get it right this time.
I draw the attention of the House to the previous Government's attitude towards local government. Under the Tories, many local government services upon which old people relied were withdrawn or charges for such services were levied or increased. As a result of the Tory Government's attacks and their application of capping and the rate support grant to local government expenditure, local government was forced to withdraw, or to levy charges for, services such as home help, assistance with bathing and personal hygiene, and help with gardening and decorating.
Bus deregulation has made it difficult for many old people to travel around their districts because of reduced services and the withdrawal of buses from certain routes. It has created pensioner poverty because pensioners must now rely on taxis. We all know that, when local government provided bus services, old people received more attention and were catered for better. Cross-subsidisation helped many of our constituents. I support the national bus pass scheme that the Deputy Prime Minister is considering, and I urge the Government to speed up its implementation. It will provide major assistance to our old people and help to reduce pensioner poverty further. That is another example of the Government's delivering on their promise to equalise public transport facilities for our old people.
It is the same with law and order. Every week, we hear about attacks on the elderly—many of which occur in their own homes. Our old people are very vulnerable to attacks because they cannot afford to install security lighting, extra-strong doors or window grills. It is those pensioners that we need to support, and I am pleased that the Government are helping people to be more secure in their own homes and providing better street lighting so that old people can feel more comfortable in their community. All those issues are part of pensioner poverty, but the Government are tackling them and making provisions to help elderly people.
As I said, there is still a great deal to be done to erase pensioner poverty. In 1980, the Tories cut the link between pensions and wages, and single pensioners suffered a loss of £22 a week. After the 17 years of Tory rule that followed the severing of that link, the reduced quality of life of many of our pensioners is apparent, and the Government must take action. I am pleased that they are reviewing future pension provision and keeping the promise that they made to the people. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to the Green Paper on pension reform.
We must at all times remember that today's pensioners contributed a percentage of their earnings to their pension, but the pension does not relate to earnings. In comparison with today's rates of income from investment, the rate of return on those pension contributions is poor, particularly when we consider the number of years for which people paid into the pension scheme. Rich people tend to get more out of what they have paid in because they live longer than poor pensioners. With means-tested benefits, the pensioners who have saved more lose out.
The state pension is about 15 per cent. of average earnings, and that percentage is falling because wages are increasing. Between 5 and 6 per cent. of the UK's gross domestic product is paid in pensions. Pensioners in many European Union countries receive around 15 per cent. of GDP.
In the two years during which the Government have been in power, they have done more to eradicate pensioner poverty than the Tories did in 18 years. I plead with the House and the country never to let a Government come to power who will attack pensioners as the Tories did in their 18 years in power. The Government are on track to eradicate pensioner poverty, and I offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and the rest of the Government on their work for pensioners over the past two years.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing time for this debate. I am pleased to take part because the issue is important for many thousands of our constituents.
Poverty among the elderly is probably worse in Wales than anywhere else in the UK. In my constituency, 22 per cent. of the Meirionnydd section of the population are elderly, retired people. In the Conwy valley, that proportion is as high as 26 per cent. Thankfully, people are living to a greater age, so the proportion of elderly people is set to increase for the foreseeable future. Life expectancy for a woman in Wales is 79 and, for a man, 74. By 2016, there will be approximately 696,000 pensioners in Wales, and about 9 per cent. of the population will be over 75. That figure is 14 per cent. higher than that expected for England.
According to Shelter Cymru, at present, 60 per cent. of pensioners in Wales live on or below the poverty line. In Wales, a majority of pensioners rely on state pensions and other state benefits as their principal source of income. In 1997, 79,000 pensioners were receiving income support. It is estimated that a further 55,000 to 71,000 elderly people who are eligible for income support did not claim their benefits. Also in 1997, 13,700 disabled pensioners and 2,700 widows were in receipt of war pensions.
In that year, the average household in Wales spent £14 a week, or 7 per cent. of its income, on fuel, light and power. Single pensioners who are dependent on a state pension spent between £7.60 and £8.40 a week on lighting, fuel and power, while those not dependent on state pensions spent between £9.30 and £16.20 on those items.
The number of unfit homes occupied in Wales is about twice as high as that in England. Wales has the worst housing stock in western Europe if the age of the housing stock is used as an indicator. Over one third of the houses were constructed before 1919, and 52 per cent. of older people in Wales live in pre-1919 dwellings.
Since older people tend to be concerned about owing money and sliding into debt, I often come across people who choose to prioritise their spending as best they can, frequently choosing between eating and heating. Is that how we shall treat old people? They have, after all, given us a good start in life and a reasonable standard of living. We owe it to them to treat them better.
It is a long-standing indictment of successive Governments that so many hard-working, honest and decent people have been pushed below the poverty line. One of the reasons for that is that Baroness Thatcher's Administration decoupled state pensions from the average rise in wages and imposed the softer option of price inflation. That has meant that, in real terms, the value of retirement pensions has slipped back considerably over the past 15 years, and that is why there is such a shameful disparity between what pensioners receive and what they should receive. The situation appears far worse when one compares the UK's retirement pension with other European examples.
Pensioners in rural Wales often have to bear the brunt of petrol price rises. Although the Government say that they will introduce free or reduced price travel for pensioners, they will have to leave that measure to local authorities, which cannot, at present, make ends meet to pay for it. I should welcome a full and honest commitment to introduce centrally funded free transport for all pensioners.
Recently, two of my constituents, Mr. Arthur Holland Williams and Mrs. Jenny Hyde, both of Blaenau Ffestiniog—that should give Hansard something to think about—came to see me at my advice surgery. They were speaking out on behalf of many other pensioners in the constituency. Mr. Williams told me that the net effect of the Government's recent pension increases has given him an extra 38p a week. His story is similar to many thousands of others. We ought to remember, at a time when water rates in Wales are crippling, and every outgoing, such as electricity standing charges, fuel, transport and food, is racing upwards, that 38p a week does not even buy a cup of coffee.
A few weeks ago, a pensioner wrote an anonymous letter to me in which he told me off most severely for criticising the Budget. Perhaps when he realises that he is less than 40p a week better off, he will understand what I meant by saying that the Budget was really a poor one—all smoke and mirrors and a spin doctor's triumph.
The Budget is hardly as generous as it seems. The basic minimum income guarantee is extended only to those who claim income support. As I said, it is estimated that between 55,000 and 71,000 pensioners in Wales are entitled to income support but do not claim it. Furthermore, those people who are just above income

support levels gain nothing from that new income. There is a 7 per cent. increase in council tax and an increase in the price of fuel and other utilities, so that increase has already been cancelled out. Age Concern, for example, says that, on balance, it would prefer a Budget that helps pensioners by making a generous increase in the basic state pension. That is the crux of the whole matter.
Mr. Williams and Mrs. Hyde, to whom I referred, gave me the following figures relating to a neighbour of theirs, whose outgoings I shall briefly detail. They are as follows: rent, £1,371.76 per annum; water rates, £54.25; council tax, £61.81; telephone, £240; electricity, £210; coal and gas, £523.08; clothing and other items, £260; food and cleaning materials, £1,300; television licence and piping service, £20.24, and household and personal insurance, £185. That is a grand total of £5,026.14. The state pension is £4,464.02, which means a deficit of £562.12. Even working out a very careful and meagre budget, and despite what one could hardly call high living, that person still has a shortfall. She hardly has a lavish life style. She must avoid buying any kind of luxury and is desperately worried about sliding into debt. Her health is being affected by the worry, and that example is typical of many cases that I have come across over the past few months.
The treatment of our pensioners is downright unfair, and that is something that I greatly resent. At a time when they should be enjoying life, having made a great contribution to our comforts, pensioners are desperately worried about making ends meet. On Monday, I met a constituent who was widowed in 1983. Her late husband was an acquaintance of mine. He was a hard-working man who was as conscientious as they come. Sadly—it was a great blow to everyone in the Bala area who knew him—he died of an industrial disease. His widow is being paid £66.75 a week in industrial benefits, which is the lowest rate of income support. Her only other means of support is a retirement pension of £38.77. She is in dire straits and unable to make ends meet. She pleads with the Government to do something.
I appreciate what the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said about the efforts being made and the pledges being given, but nothing much is changing on the ground. It is a grave injustice that the lady to whom I referred not only lost the companionship of her husband in 1983 but—after all that he and, indeed, she, suffered—is paid the lowest rate possible. I shall be writing to the Minister about the case to seek more and proper explanations and, better still, I hope, some changes.
The time has surely come to stop tinkering with pensions and to stop hiding behind the elusive £1 excess income, which deprives people of benefit. Surely the time has come to overhaul and simplify the system to ensure that pensions are substantially increased. I welcome some of the Government's proposals, but they are merely tinkering at the edges. We should be considering abolishing utility standing charges for the elderly and ensuring that pensioners' means are taken into account when calling for the payment of council tax and water charges. There are many more things that could be done to improve the quality of life of our elderly citizens. I am angry and ashamed, as I am sure many other hon. Members are, about a system which cuts taxes for the well-off but denies the elderly the decent standard of living that they richly deserve.
I conclude by quoting from a report entitled "The Financial Situations of Older People in Wales" by Age Concern Cymru, Help the Aged and the Welsh Consumer Council. The report concludes:
It is said that a society is judged by the way it treats its young and its old: if this is the case then the treatment of older people in Wales and Britain as a whole reflects very badly on the British state and British society. While notions of poverty are subjective in many respects it is objectively evident that older people in Britain are the poor relations of the European Union—they deserve more.
I fully agree with those words.

Mr. Eddie O'Hara: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing this debate and providing hon. Members with an opportunity to draw attention to various matters of concern. We must be aware of the context in which this debate is taking place, and I join my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) in congratulating the Government on doing more than any Government in recent history, and certainly more than the previous Government, to alleviate pensioner poverty. It is telling that there is not a single Conservative Back Bencher present for this debate.
I shall save time by not dwelling on the benefits that the Government have introduced, some of which have already been mentioned: the reduction of value-added tax on fuel, the universal winter fuel payments, the minimum income guarantee, tax allowances which take another 200,000 pensioners out of taxation—on top of the two thirds who already pay no tax—free eye tests, moves towards more and universal concessionary travel and many others which my hon. Friend the Minister will perhaps mention. Let us not forget that the Government have already made enormous advances in alleviating pensioner poverty, but I want to draw attention to some remaining concerns, make some appeals and perhaps offer advice to the Government as to how they might target future action further to alleviate pensioner poverty.
One concern is that the gap will continue to widen between pensioners and the rest of the population. It has already been pointed out that although the minimum income guarantee will now rise in line with earnings, for which we are grateful, the basic state pension will continue to be linked to inflation.
I am concerned to ensure that future pensioners should be allowed what I call, although it is not my own term, active ageing. That means being allowed to enjoy health and mobility and, indeed, in their pre-retirement years, employment which allows them to make provision for their old age. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton mentioned access to information and entertainment in connection with the television licence.
The minimum income guarantee is welcome, but there are well-known concerns about it. It causes much confusion among older people, many of whom think that it is the same as the state pension, when of course it is not. More than 1 million pensioners do not get the minimum income guarantee—700,000 of them because, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, they do not claim the income support to which they are entitled. A further 600,000 do not receive it because they have savings in excess of £3,000
In that connection, I remind my hon. Friend the Minister of an answer he gave on 13 April to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). My right hon. Friend asked how much it would cost to buy an annuity now which would give an income equal to the state pension
in 15 years' time, assuming that the basic pension is raised in line with prices, the minimum income guarantee is raised in line with earnings
and so on. The answer was that it would cost
£15,000 in 1999 earnings terms, or £19,000 in 1999 prices
to purchase an annuity now which would provide
an income equivalent to the difference between the basic State pension and the Minimum Income Guarantee".—[Official Report, 15 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 151.]
I remind my hon. Friend that 600,000 pensioners are not entitled to the MIG because they have savings in excess of only £3,000. I ask the Government to bear that in mind.
Age Concern conducted a survey of pensioners and health. There is certainly a perception among pensioners that there is discrimination on grounds of age in some parts of the national health service. Ill health is expensive and contributes to poverty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton said much that needed to be said on the question of mobility and about the need to provide the transport for which increased concessionary travel will be available. I remind the Minister that many old people have large cars because of their disability—for example, they may need to transport a wheelchair—but they cannot claim the new concession on vehicle excise duty. Also, if they have large cars, they suffer from the increase in the price of petrol above the rate of inflation every year. There may be ways in which pensioners can be helped with that problem.
With regard to employment, I mentioned that if people lose their jobs in the years leading up to old age, they lose the opportunity to prepare for old age. The Government must intervene actively where necessary to help older people into employment. It is pleasing that the new deal is now taking account of people over 50.
I shall deal briefly with other concerns. Some older people will be taxed at 20 per cent., even though they fall within the 10 per cent. tax band, because the tax on savings will not be reduced. In addition, the Minister will be aware of the long, hard campaign that I and others have waged on the issue of reclaiming tax credit on dividends.
The abolition of the widows bereavement allowance particularly affects older widows. The abolition of tax relief on new home income plans reduces the opportunity for some older people to realise capital tied up in their houses to increase income.
I have an early-day motion on the Order Paper today drawing attention to the fiasco of the 1986 decision to reduce to 50 per cent. widows' and widowers' entitlement to inherit SERPS. That decision was not publicised by the Department, so between 1986 and 1999 pensioners have been planning for the future on the basis of wrong information. I appeal to the Government to sort out that mess as quickly as possible.
The overall picture shows some darts well aimed by the Government. Much help has been given to all pensioners, and much more immediate help to the most needy, but more needs to be done in future Budgets. Millions of


responsible, deserving pensioners are penalised by an array of relatively small losses as a result of recent taxation measures.
The Chancellor has shown himself to be imaginative and generous in his targeting of fiscal Policies. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to use his influence with the Chancellor so that in future Budgets my right hon. Friend will take corrective action where he has room for generosity. If that is done, I look forward to seeing more darts on the dart board, hitting the bull's-eye and the double top, bringing about the secure old age that current and future pensioners deserve. Let us not forget that all the benefits of prosperity that we enjoy have already been contributed to and paid for by current pensioners and pensioners soon to come.

Mr. Quentin Davies: The hon. Member for Sutton Cheam(Mr. Burstow) is to be Warmly congratulated by the House on having seized the initiative and secured the debate on such a timely issue, which is of immediate concern to millions of our fellow citizens.
We have had an extremely interesting debate. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) produced numerous facts and figures. It was useful for our debate to be informed by precise information and by the personal cases of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. our constituents' view of the world. The hon. Gentleman made an excellent speech.
We heard some extremely interesting remarks from the hon. Members for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara). There were the ritual genuflections to their own Front Bench, a few nasty things said about the Tories and a few quotes from the latest Millbank tower handout, but the broad thrust of their contributions was a damming critique of the Government's actions or inaction in respect of older and retired people: inaction in the case of concessionary television licences,buses—a matter that the hon. Member for Normanton was right —and age discrimination in varies cases cited by the hon. Member for Knowsley, South.
I was particularly struck by what the hon. Gentleman said about age discrimination in job market and in the national health service. I introduced a private Member's Bill on that subject in the previous Parliament. The Labour party made a number of commitments before the last election. During parlimentary questions last November, the Prime Minister made a commitment to me to legislate on the matter, but, so far, nothing has been done. The indictment of the Government's inaction is well deserved.
The hon. Members for Normanton and for Knowsley, South were even more critical of the Government's failure to restore the earning link, which was the thrust of the Labour party's propaganda in opposition, and of the Government's great extension of means-testing.
There was a good joke this morning from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam. I am sure that it was a deliberate joke; it was certainly very amusing. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Treasury had consulted the Department of Social Security about the Budget. I have been in my present job for only a few months, but that is

long enough to realise that the Treasury does not consult the Department of Social Security about anything—the Treasury gives orders to the Department.
Policy on matters such as pensions and welfare is made entirely in the Treasury. The Benefits Agency hands out the money in the country, and the only role of the Minister of State and his ministerial colleagues is to defend the indefensible in the House and elsewhere. That is an unenviable role and some of us might consider it unedifying as well, but that is the role in which they have allowed themselves to be cast. Let us have no doubt about who is calling the shots on policy.
There is profound concern among retired people and those approaching retirement for all the reasons that have emerged during the debate. People are wondering what is going on. The answer is that the Government are engaged in making colossal fools of older and retired people. Before the last election and for many years previously, all the propaganda suggested that Labour would restore the earnings link. I had that thrown at me at public meetings and on the doorstep during the election campaign. Millions of people voted for the Labour party in that expectation and the Government have defaulted on it.
The Labour party has always shared with us scepticism about means testing. During my time in the House, I have heard eloquent and persuasive speeches from Labour Members about the unfairness of means testing and the damage that it does to a sense of social responsibility and to the incentive to save. Perhaps the Government had a secret agenda, but no one was prepared for what has happened. There has been the most colossal extension of means testing since the 1930s. The worst aspect has been the extension of that to pensioners.
Most extraordinarily, the Chancellor declared as recently as 1993 at the Labour party conference:
I want the next Labour Government to achieve what in 50 years of the Welfare State has never been achieved. The end of the means test for our elderly people".
In fact, as I said, he has brought about the most colossal increase in means testing for elderly people since the 1930s, of which the Government should be thoroughly ashamed.

Mr. Rendel: Will the hon. Gentleman therefore confirm that the Conservatives will make it their official policy to agree with the Liberal Democrats that an extra £3 should be given to over 75-year-olds and an extra £5 to over 80-year-olds, which will reduce means-testing?

Mr. Davies: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that, where the country can afford it, it is absolutely right to increase the state retirement pension, for which people have paid through their national insurance contributions, and not to discriminate particularly invidiously against people with small savings or to extend means testing. That has been quite the wrong approach. We shall propose our own policies for the next election—and for the next Government—which will be diametrically opposed to the direction in which the Labour party has been taking us over the past two years. I give that assurance unambiguously and clearly.
As if that were not enough, the Government have used the tax system to discriminate against retired people and those with small savings in a way that would have been
quite unimaginable—indeed was so until it happened. The Government have found a way of forcing people who are below the income tax threshold on their aggregate income to pay 20 per cent. tax on their small savings income. That particularly impacts on small savers and retired people.
I understand that, as a result of the Government's vicious decision to force people whose total income is under the threshold that Parliament has fixed—below which people should not pay any tax on their income—to pay tax, 300,000 non-taxpaying pensioners and a further 330,000 non-taxpayers will lose an average of £75 a year each, and 80,000 pensioners will lose more than £100 a year, and they can ill afford that. That is utterly unforgivable. The Government have cynically done that—perhaps in the belief that retired and older people are so stupid that they will not realise what is going on. If that is what the Government think, they have another think coming.
With a great many bells and whistles, it was announced in the Budget that we would have a new lop starting rate of income tax, but we were not told that it would not apply to savings income. So, those who have retired, and therefore do not have earned income—they may have very modest savings—will not benefit from the lop rate. That is vicious discrimination against savers in general, and retired people in particular. If the Government do not think that the country will notice, they are in for a very nasty shock.
This is a Government who are all positive rhetoric and no positive substance. The real substance, such as it is, has been thoroughly negative—certainly for the retired and elderly sections of our population over the past two years. I dread to think where retired people, particularly those on modest incomes who have small savings, will find themselves at the end of four years if we continue as we have over the past two.

Mr. John Cryer: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing this important debate. I wonder where all the Tory Members are. The words of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) ring a little hollow, given the empty Benches behind him.
All hon. Members have referred to their constituencies in this debate. Both my constituency of Hornchurch and the borough of Havering have a very high proportion of pensioners. Like other hon. Members, I see pensioners in my surgeries and meet them in the street, and they write to me and call me, so I feel able to represent their views quite effectively.
The biggest complaint that I receive undoubtedly concerns the reliance on means testing. Without any shadow of doubt, the Government have moved in the right direction. The Budget was marginally redistributive. The cut in value added tax on fuel was important, although, personally, I would have abolished it completely. Free eye tests are also important, as is the minimum income guarantee.
However, the number of people who are dependent on means-tested benefits, particularly income support, is generally rising. In my constituency, the number of

pensioners in privately rented accommodation who are dependent on income support is 500. The number who are council tenants is nearly 2,000. That is unacceptably high.
I know that the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister have often said that their principal aim on pensions is to remove reliance on means testing. I read the pensions Green Paper when it was released a short time ago, and have some specific questions about exactly how the state second pension—the replacement for the state earnings-related pension scheme—and the stakeholder pension will work.
The Green Paper claims that, as a result of the state second pension, there will be enormous increases over SERPS for low-income earners when they retire, but does not explain exactly how that will work. I would be interested in knowing the exact mechanism for guaranteeing such increases. Where will the savings and investment come from? What kind of figures are we talking about? How many pensioners will the state second pension remove from reliance on income support? I would be very interested in that, given the constituency that I represent. What time scale will apply to the state second pension? How soon will pensioners start to benefit from it?
I worked in the pensions industry during the 1980s as an underwriter, and saw the mis-selling. "Mis-selling" is just a euphemism; what took place was fraud—with the previous Government's blessing, by the way. Having seen that, I cannot envisage how the figures will stack up in the stakeholder pension scheme. There will be no compulsion, or even pressure, to ensure that employers contribute or help to set up the schemes, and that is the vital missing part. If the schemes are to be successful, there must ultimately be some compulsion on employers to take part and contribute to them.
I do not know how low-income workers will be able to contribute sufficiently to stakeholder schemes to give them a decent income when they retire. Such schemes generally concern people not on very low incomes, but on relatively low incomes. What actuarial analysis lies behind the potential stakeholder schemes?
I should like the Government to move toward the type of nationwide occupational schemes in Australia, which force employers to contribute and to take part in setting up the schemes. Even if we moved towards that, the problems on retirement of the very poorest pensioners and wage-earners would not be solved. I have always believed that the answer for the poorest pensioners and lowest wage-earners is ultimately the national state pension, to which we all contribute throughout our lives. That must be the saviour for the poorest pensioners. As many hon. Members have pointed out, if the increases in the state pension had been in line with earnings, and not just prices, since the link with earnings was abolished in 1981, the lowest pension would be about £90, rather than the current pretty miserly one.
As I said, the biggest complaint made by pensioners who come to my surgery is about means-testing. There is an almost visceral dislike of means testing among pensioners, which is entirely understandable. The Government have launched many schemes to find out why pensioners are not taking up their entitlement to income support. About 700,000 pensioners refuse to do so.
I can answer those questions for the Government, without using any schemes. The last thing that people want—certainly those in my constituency who might have


worked on the docks all their lives, been through the war and perhaps brought up a large family in difficult circumstances—is to have to go down to the Department of Social Security office to be patronised by someone half their age, patted on the head and told that they can have something to which they should be entitled in the first place. That leads to bitter, deep and long-standing resentment among pensioners.
We should be moving towards universal benefits that are available to everybody and, effectively, abolition of means testing. I would like greater emphasis to be placed on that.

Mr. Steve Webb: It is a pleasure to take part in a debate on this important subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) has campaigned very hard on this issue, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. It is also a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), who raised issues relating to employers being required to put money into stakeholder schemes and made some telling points. I hope that the Minister will respond to them. There may be less pension provision, not more, if employers start opting out of occupational schemes, into which they are putting money, and run stakeholder schemes instead.
In the few minutes available to me, I shall address primarily the future of pensioner poverty—where are we headed? However, a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam prompts me to remark briefly on where we are now. I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to say what proportion of pensioners in different age bands—on his definition, not on mine—were living in fuel poverty, which is spending more than 10 per cent. of income on fuel. The figures for younger pensioners were frightening enough, but the figure for households headed by a pensioner aged over 80 was 80 per cent.
That figure for such households was reached through the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' definition of fuel poverty and its own figures. It shows the problem that we face and highlights our particular concern about older pensioners. However, I want principally to address our tomorrow—indeed, all our tomorrows, in 2020 or 2050. Where are we headed?
The Government have said that we start from a situation in which one pensioner in four is dependent not on means-tested benefits, but on income support alone. Hundreds of thousands more receive rent rebates, council tax benefit and so on, but 1.5 million pensioners out of about 6 million pensioner benefit units receive income support. The Government tell us that, on unchanged policies, that figure will be one in three in 2050, but the pensioner population will rise over that period and that figure will increase to 3.5 million pensioners, compared with 1.5 million today.
The Government also say that we need not worry because, if the Green Paper proposals are implemented, the figure will be one in four—but one in four of a bigger pensioner population, or 2.5 million pensioners. The Government say that, if they introduce their policies—leaving aside the possibility that lots more people will suddenly save, and assuming that a mass savings habit does not suddenly start—the figure will still be one in

four, but 2.5 million pensioners will be receiving income support instead of 1.5 million. That figure also leaves aside all the other means-tested benefits.
If I were about to write a pensions policy for the next 50 years, I would not consider an extra million pensioners receiving income support in 50 years, when the whole blasted scheme was working, to be a triumph. I would consider that a failure. The Government say in response, "But we are trying to encourage more people to save for their old age, through stakeholder schemes." I am sure that stakeholder schemes will overcome some of the barriers that people face under the personal pension regime, but there is real danger that, because of the Government's commitment to link the minimum income guarantee to earnings—I reiterate my support for that—the yawning gap between the basic pension and the poverty line will discourage people from saving.
It has been suggested that an annuity of between £15,000 and £20,000 would fill the current gap between the basic pension and the income support line, but that gap will grow quickly—not in line with prices or earnings, but faster than both. The gap between an item linked to prices and an item indexed to earnings rises faster than both; the simple arithmetic tells us that. The annuity that people would need to buy to fill that gap—the stakeholder pension pot—would rise exponentially, which would discourage people from saving.
I believe that the Minister genuinely wants to do something about pensioner poverty and that he cares about poor pensioners. For those who receive it, the minimum income guarantee will be of great value. A crucial issue, therefore, is non-take-up. In its election manifesto, the Labour party used the available figures and said that 1 million pensioners did not claim their income support. It has since emerged that there was a statistical blunder: that was not the Government's fault; they did not know that the figure was wrong. We hear that the figure is between 400,000 and 700,000; I ask the Minister to go back to his civil servants and demand proper figures now.
I have asked for details of those 400,000 to 700,000 pensioners: for example, how many of them are older pensioners? That is germane to assessing the validity of our strategy for helping older pensioners. I am told that I will have to wait for those details until May, when we will finally get some take-up figures. They will be three or four years out of date.
I used to be involved in constructing such statistics. One error made those figures wrong: the Government missed out private widows' pensions when they were working out people's incomes. I do not see why it should take four or five months to put that error right. Parliament is being denied proper information on a key issue for evaluating the Government's pensions policy.
The Government are relying heavily on means testing. Even if the figure is one in four in 2050, it will represent 2.5 million people; if it is one in five, it will represent 2 million people. That is a serious amount of means testing. A crucial aspect of assessing that policy is whether take-up is a big problem. It is shocking that we do not have proper information. I hope that the Minister will go back to his Department and get us proper information.
I want to raise a final point about the future of pensioner poverty. Let us assume that Government policy is introduced; although a mass savings habit does not
develop, there is no mass desertion from saving and we end up with a figure of one in four, which is an average over all pensioners, from those aged 65 to those in the oldest age groups. What will be the proportion for the over-80s or the over-85s? It will not be one in four because we know that the newly retired are, on average, much better off than the very elderly. The figure may be one in four for all pensioners, but perhaps one in six or one in seven for the newly retired. What would it be for the very elderly—one in two?
If half the people in our country aged over 80 end up on means-tested benefits after 50 years of a bright, shiny new pensions policy, what will have been the point of it? By then, people aged 80 may still have 10 years of life left, on average. If the Government will not put pensions up across the board, which would be expensive, can we not do something to make sure that those people at least do not have to fill in means-tested benefit forms every year, with us hoping that they will claim, when they reach extreme old age?
The Minister is a reasonable man, and I shall sit down now to allow him as much time as possible to respond.

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): I too congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on his success in securing the debate. I was pleased to hear that he is a regular attender at meetings of the older people's forum his constituency. I commend that to the House; it is important that Members listen to what older people say. I will say a little more about how the Government are listening to older people and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's practice will be taken up much more widely.
The complete absence of Conservative Back-Bench Members is striking and telling, as a number of contributors have said. This is the International Year of Older People, whose slogan is "A Society for All Ages", and it is appropriate that we are having this important debate at a relatively early stage of it.
There have been big changes in the structure of the economy during the past 50 years. Traditional industries have declined and working patterns are very different. During that period of immense social change, spending on social security has moved inexorably upwards. Despite the increase in spending, poverty and inequality have increased—in particular, for pensioners. The average pensioner income has risen sharply over the past 20 years, due largely to the success of occupational pensions, which I welcome, but a large number of people have not shared in the benefits of that rise.
The best-off 20 per cent. of pensioners have an income that is, in real terms, 70 per cent. higher than in 1979. The figure for the least well off 20 per cent. is only 30 per cent. There has been a huge rise in inequality among pensioners, and hon. Members were right to draw attention to that. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) provided some interesting figures on the position in Wales.
Addressing that inequality requires fundamental reform of the pensions system. Our pensions Green Paper, which was published before Christmas, sets out our strategy for reform. It is based on the principle that everybody who

can save for their retirement has a responsibility to do so. In turn, the Government have a responsibility to provide security in retirement for those who cannot save enough, and to regulate the pensions system effectively.
We want to put pensions on a sound footing, so that every pensioner is assured of a decent income in retirement and people can rely on secure and effective private pensions. We want to deliver security for today's pensioners and peace of mind for tomorrow's.
I want to focus most of my remarks on today's pensioners, but my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) and the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) raised important questions about the future of pension provision, so I shall respond briefly to those points. Our proposals are based on four interlinked pillars.
First, we had a manifesto commitment to uprate the basic state pension annually at least in line with prices, and we have honoured that commitment as we have all our others. The basic state pension will not be means-tested and will not be privatised. Secondly, the minimum income guarantee, delivered through income support, will provide an income floor below which no pensioner without savings will fall, and we aim to uprate the level of that guarantee over time in line with earnings. Thirdly, the state second pension will ensure that everybody who has worked and contributed throughout their lives—allowing, for the first time, for periods out of work caring for a disabled person or bringing up children below the age of five, and for periods out of work through long-term disability—will have an income on retirement above the minimum income guarantee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch asked for more details about how that will work. Under the state second pension, anyone who has earned in lifetime earnings less than £9,000 a year will be treated as if they had earned £9,000. In addition, the accrual rate for someone at the £9,000 point will be twice as much as it would have been under the state earnings-related pension scheme. I hope that it is clear from that explanation that, for people earning above the lower earnings limit and below £9,000, and for those earning rather more than £9,000, the state second pension represents a significant improvement on what is available under SERPS. It should come into effect in 2002 and, to gain the whole benefit of that, a person would have to have spent his whole working life in the state second pension. As with everything to do with pensions, it will take a long time for the full benefit to work through. I think that my hon. Friend will recognise that we are proposing a substantial improvement.
The fourth pillar is stakeholder pension schemes, which will provide people for whom no suitable funded scheme is now available with good value, reliable, funded pensions, which will benefit from higher levels of national insurance rebate than are currently available. There are large numbers of such people. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch, let me say that employers will be required to give access to a stakeholder scheme under our proposals. We will not require employers to contribute to them, although some are considering doing so.
That approach has been widely welcomed, and we are now analysing more than 550 responses to the Green Paper. However, the central point in this debate is that


there are millions of existing pensioners for whom those reforms will come too late and who need help now to enjoy their retirement. We are determined to do more to help those who need it most. We have taken action to help all pensioners while giving priority to the least well-off, who are the central concern in this debate.
We have announced a £2 billion a year package for today's pensioners. From this month, income support rates for eligible pensioners will increase by three times the rate of inflation to give a minimum income guarantee for pensioners who are entitled to income support of £75 a week for a single person and £116 for a couple. As a result, pensioners receiving income support will be at least £160 better off in real terms in the coming year, and 65,000 pensioners not previously entitled to claim income support because they have been just above the threshold—a point made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy—will for the first time be able to do so and enjoy the benefits of the higher level of minimum income guarantee.
In April next year, the guarantee will be increased in line with earnings. That will help to ensure that even the least well-off pensioners are able to share in rising national prosperity. From that month, a further 20,000 will become entitled and so benefit from the guarantee.
The guarantee is being set at a higher level for older pensioners. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to the needs of older pensioners. Given the earnings-related rise, from this month, the rate will be £125.30 for couples one or both of whom is over 80, and we expect that rate to increase by another £5 per week next April. So, next year, an older pensioner couple on income support is likely to be more than £600 a year better off in real terms over this two-year period. Those are substantial gains for the least well-off pensioners—those on income support. We are proposing a series of well-aimed darts, to use the term of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara).

Mr. Burstow: Hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that 700,000 pensioners are not taking up their entitlement to income support. I hope that the Minister will say something about the Government's pilot projects, because that is an important matter. Those well-aimed darts are not hitting their targets, because those pensioners are not getting the benefits.

Mr. Timms: One and a half million pensioner households certainly are receiving the benefits. However, the hon. Gentleman is right: this is an important issue.

Last year, we commissioned new research into the reasons why up to 700,000 pensioners are not submitting claims. We set up pilot projects to examine new ways of identifying potential recipients and how best to encourage them to claim. We are now examining the results as they emerge, and we are planning our next steps. I hope to be able to tell the House more about that in due course.
However, we are left with the problem of pensioners with low incomes and modest savings that are just above the savings limits for income support. They see little benefit from the effort that they have made to save for their old age, and we do not think that that is right. People should feel that it is worth while to save, and we want them to do so. That is why we said in the Green Paper that we want to examine ways in which we can better reward those who have saved for their retirement. We have consulted on that and we are analysing the responses. We shall announce our proposals for change later in this Parliament.
The Budget made substantial changes to improve the tax position of pensioners. The income tax personal allowance for pensioners aged between 65 and 74 rose by £310, which is £130 more than the normal indexation. Other changes were made for people aged over 75. As a result of those substantial changes, 200,000 pensioners will be taken out of income tax. Two thirds of pensioners will not pay any tax at all.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam asked me to talk about long-term care. We are addressing that complex issue. The report of the royal commission was published at the beginning of March, and we are considering it carefully. Yesterday, I spoke to one of the commissioners, Claire Rayner. I am unable to say when that response will be published, but we are considering the matter urgently.
The inter-ministerial group on older people, which I chair, has commissioned wide-ranging research on older people's attitudes and aspirations. It has focused on active ageing as one of the major themes—to pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South. We are also focusing on the importance of consultation. During the year, we are having a series of "listening to older people" events, jointly organised by non-governmental organisations, to support the United Nations International Year of Older Persons. There will be about 10 events, and all 15 of my fellow Ministers on the inter-ministerial group will be taking part in one or more of them. We want to know what older people want from the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We must now move to the next debate.

Park Homes

11 am

Mr. Hilton Dawson: I am delighted to have had the good fortune to secure this debate—I expect that the Chamber will be packed to the rafters before long—and to have the chance to air the problems and, indeed, opportunities involved in park home living as it affects my constituents on some 1,000 pitches in 47 parks in the district of Wyre, as it affects some 200,000 people in the United Kingdom, and as it affects older people living in rural areas. That last category is quite relevant to the earlier debate.
It is, I suppose, the inevitable fate of Governments coming to power after a hiatus of 18 years to be faced with problems that should have been resolved years earlier, which have been compounded over time, and which have been sorely neglected for so long that people have despaired of their ever being sorted out. I doubt, however, whether many problems discussed in the House have involved such a basic difficulty in regard to definition. Nowhere in the legislation—which is sorely inadequate for the purpose of providing all park home owners with the security and consideration that most of us take for granted—is there so much as a definition of "park home".
The Mobile Homes Act 1983, the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 contain no better definition than that contained in housing booklet 30, "Mobile Homes", published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It states:
The legal definition of a mobile home is the same as that for a caravan. Broadly speaking, it covers any structure designed or adapted for people to live in which is capable of being moved from one place to another (whether by being towed or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer). This does not include railway stock on a railway line which is in use, nor tents. It does include twin units separately constructed and designed for assembly on site, provided that the twin unit is physically capable of being moved when assembled. The twin unit must be no more than 60 foot long 20 foot wide and the living accommodation no more than 10 foot high.
I am glad that we are not discussing tents, but we should not really be discussing caravans either. I think that we should scrap all references to caravans and mobile homes when referring to park homes in residential parks that have planning permission for 365 days a year. We should be discussing housing needs, housing resources, housing law and housing policy. I do not propose to talk about holiday parks in which people often live for
11 months of the year. Although they give rise to serious anomalies and problems that will need to be dealt with in the future, our first priority must be to deal with residential parks.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: The hon. Gentleman mentioned holiday homes. People who obtain mobile homes often have to sign a document containing the word "holiday", and are not aware what that means. Many authorities are able to turn such people away from sites. The Government should tackle the problem. The word "holiday" should not be taken into consideration when people sign deeds or other documents relating to mobile homes.

Mr. Dawson: I commend the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, and I share his concern. Personally,

I feel that the issues relating to holiday parks are even more complex than those involving residential parks; but, before we do anything else, it is in the interests of all who live in any structure covered by mobile home or caravan legislation for us to clarify at least the residential aspect.
Park homes are not caravans. Usually, they are mobile only once, when they are installed, as I learned when I first visited a park home. Park homes are delivered—often to delightful rural locations—as prefabricated units; but once they have been installed with mains services bricked in, capable of being extended, adapted and reroofed, of having their insulation improved and, in principle, of being completely replaced part by part over time, they can hardly be described as mobile. They are homes, some valued at under £10,000 but others costing as much as £100,000. They are sited in parks owned by others, for which a pitch fee is paid, but they are still homes, which can provide a very comfortable, pleasant way of life—especially for older and semi-retired people who want a quiet existence.
Two of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Ward of Wyre Vale park and Lodge park in my constituency, are Park Home and Holiday Caravan magazine's park owners of 1999. I am told by my constituents in Cabus and Catterall that they provide two splendid, safe, secure parks for older people. They have made a serious long-term investment in their parks, enabling them to develop high standards and excellent relationships with park residents in attractive surroundings. They plainly have a good, expanding business, for their parks are permanently full. News of impending vacancies is conveyed by word of mouth rather than advertisement. They intend to be around for a long time, and good luck to them.
Unfortunately, however, park home living is not all like that. I am hardly an expert on the subject; until about three years ago, I had never heard of park homes. But one day when I was campaigning in Poulton-Le-Fylde, I got talking to someone who had a story to tell. As a result, we decided to get together with some other people and hold a public meeting. We booked a room for 25. Given that it was a warm summer evening in Garstang, and that the subject was aimed at older, retired people who presumably would be keen on a quiet life, I expected half a dozen people to turn up; in fact, 72 turned up.
We ended up outside, in a grassy area, holding an impromptu meeting at which I heard tale after tale of people made vulnerable by age and infirmity who, having invested their life savings in park homes in isolated rural surroundings, had been verbally abused by park owners and their staff. They had been encouraged to move on so that the owners could claim a 10 per cent. commission on a sale. Annual pitch fee increases way above the rate of inflation had been imposed on them with no negotiation or discussion. Their parks, in which they lived and in which they had invested money—often their life savings—had been redesigned without consultation. Park owners had undermined their ability to sell their own property, and had then offered to buy it themselves for a much lower price. I have heard of inadequate electricity supplies—whereby putting on a kettle at the wrong time blew the electricity supply of the entire site—and of cases in which parks' physical standards were poor, and sometimes dangerous. I have also heard of cases in which attempts at building a residents association, to start a


reasonable dialogue, were constantly thwarted and undermined, and in which people were unsure of their rights, confused, angry and afraid.
Subsequently, we had a succession of meetings. As soon as we received publicity, I started receiving letters from people across the country who were concerned about the issue. We organised a local conference to put people in touch with some excellent residents associations, such as the National Association of Park Home Residents, the British Park Home Residents Association and, perhaps above all, the Independent Park Home Advisory Service. We then went to meet Lord Graham—who I contend knows more about park homes than all the Members of this place and the other place put together. He has campaigned on the issue for years, and is held in great respect everywhere.
Spurred on by all that encouragement, we started to talk to the listening and progressive council leader—Councillor Richard Anyon—of Wyre borough council, which was quick to develop its practice on the matter. The council produced an information booklet for local park home residents, began to give more attention to site licences and pioneered home insulation schemes for park home residents. However, although a great amount of work is continuing at local level, that work is a mere drop in the ocean of painstaking casework and campaigning undertaken for so long by so many people.
As recently as last month, when I spoke to the annual conference of a very good park owners association—the British Holiday and Home Parks Association—in Edinburgh, I was told quite sincerely by a number of people that there really are no problems in park homes, and that any issues are stirred up by agitators and the permanently disgruntled.
At the conference, research was quoted—from about 1990—from the then Department of the Environment, stating that nine tenths of residents are happy with their lot. There are a great many knowledgeable, decent and honest park owners—I know that because I have met many of them—but, on that matter, they are absolutely wrong. I know that they are wrong because I have attended many public meetings, on many subjects—one man and his dog turn up at many of the meetings, although the dog usually goes away half way through them—and have come to realise that 70, 80 or 100 older people do not come along to such meetings if there is not a real problem.
I also know that those park owners are wrong because I have met Professor Philip Kenny, of the university of Northumbria, who has been a legal adviser on park homes for 15 years. He has called for radical reform of the Mobile Homes Act 1983, to align current law with housing legislation, and has commented that
persons who are strangers to the world of mobile homes would be astounded by the absolute power of financial oppression that one person has over another." 
I also know that they are wrong because I have listened to the experience of IPHAS's advisers—people of courage and integrity—such as Joan Aylott, Alan Savory, Colin Packman and Bernard Johnson. It takes courage and integrity to do the work that they have done over so many years.
Courage and integrity are qualities possessed also by Roy Waite, who for many years has been a driving force in park home residents organisations. Roy is watching this

debate and, after it, will probably tell me that I have it all wrong. However, if he were on the Floor of the House, he could tell hon. Members about local authorities that have completely failed to regulate and inspect parks; of councils whose own parks have been neglected; of the grotesque exploitation of vulnerable people, pressured to sell their homes way below market value; of residents harassed by park owners wanting to redevelop a site that the residents are entitled to occupy permanently; and of the outrageous, criminal treatment of the residents who came home to find their home towed off the site and dumped by the roadside.
I have seen some excellent examples of park home living. However, in a recent study of harassment, the centre for urban and rural studies, at the university of Birmingham, has shown that there is a general feeling that current arrangements are ineffective, and that the protection of residents' civil rights offered by the law, by industry self-regulation, by residents' associations and by other agencies is inadequate.
The loopholes afforded by legislation that was intended to apply to caravans, but that now applies to a very important part of the United Kingdom's housing resources, may create circumstances in which the vulnerable, poor and old—and those who are ignorant of their rights, or are without the self-confidence, knowledge or resources to enforce those rights—are exploited. It is an issue that cannot be ignored by any decent and responsible Government who are committed to meeting housing need, to ensuring supply of good-quality, affordable housing, and to fairness.
I believe in the truth of the words uttered by one of my constituents, at our very first meeting in Garstang, that, somewhere in the United Kingdom:
Rachman is alive and well and running a residential park.
I believe that, among the great majority of perfectly decent people running residential parks, there are some rogues from whom people should be protected. I believe that we have a potentially very fine, very important industry that is being undermined. Its reputation is being damaged. It could do so much better, both in meeting housing need and in providing business opportunities, but only if we get the problems sorted out and if—this is probably an insult to cowboys—we kick out the cowboys.
It is a good industry. That is demonstrated by nothing so well as the monthly magazine, Park Home and Holiday Caravan, which is indefatigably edited by Anne Webb and reports not only the good but the bad sides of the industry. The magazine reports on comfortable, secure, often extremely attractive and well-run parks, and on the ever-developing design of park homes. In a recent edition, I read an inspirational piece about the way in which a park home had been creatively adapted to meet the needs of a disabled person. This month, we heard of a group of residents who, between them, have bought the park in which they were living and are now managing it co-operatively.
The British Home and Holiday Parks Association and the National Park Homes Council are responsible organisations of park owners, run by competent and reasonable people. We have seen the industry attempt its own quality assurance—from the park homes charter to the gold seal assurance for park homes; the National Park Homes Council's quality awards for parks, which are setting high standards—and whose residents are now able


to access 25-year finance packages; and the forthcoming involvement of the independent housing ombudsman. Those are all worthy initiatives—let us make no mistake about it—but they are no substitute for fundamental reform of the law, and they should not be touted as such.
I was pleased to be part of an all-party delegation led by Lord Graham, in late 1997, to see the Minister for Local Government and Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), and was absolutely delighted that she agreed to establish a review of legislation on park homes and to involve in that review representatives of the main industry groups, the three residents associations and the Local Government Association.
I have been to one meeting and received the minutes. The group appears to be working well. It is a focus of national interest from people living in park homes throughout the country. It has commissioned research, defined many areas for discussion and developed good working relationships between all parties. People of good will on all sides are making positive contributions. It is rightly tackling the complex issues on which we need reform in primary and secondary legislation.
We must have standard written agreements signed by both parties at the time of sale. It is nonsense that, under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, they can be delivered three months later. We must have an appropriate time limit, perhaps 28 days, from receipt of references for a park owner to decide whether to approve a private sale or to give clear reasons—there can be perfectly good reasons—why it cannot go ahead. It would be sensible if purchasing procedures were formalised to register the occupancy of the pitch and the sale of the home.
I am amazed by how trusting people are when they invest so much money and make a major life decision to take on park home living. That is a legacy of caravans. Some park homes cost more than £100,000. Many others cost much less, but may still require the investment of life savings. It is palpably not an undertaking to be entered into lightly, without proper searches and legal advice. The ability of a park owner to levy a commission of up to 10 per cent. of the value on the sale of a park home—it is often a 10 per cent. fee for doing nothing—is an incentive to the unscrupulous to persuade people to move on. I have no doubt about the anger felt by those who improve the value of their home and see the commission increase.

Mr. Simon Burns: I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has said, but does he find it curious that after its investigation Shelter did not recommend the abolition of the commission? Does he know why that view was taken?

Mr. Dawson: I am not advocating the abolition of the commission. I understand why Shelter took that view. Responsible park owners and organisations have told me that, together with new home sales, siting charges and pitch fees, the commission is a crucial way of financing new investment in parks. Without the 10 per cent. commission, pitch fees would have to rise accordingly, which could make park home living less accessible to people in housing need.
New investment in parks is vital. We must have improvement and modernisation. It is reasonable for those who work hard and invest their money to expect a fair return. The financing of home parks is the knottiest problem. We need more openness and clarity about it. Pitch fees should be negotiated properly between the park owner and the park resident. We need a neutral system of fair pitch fees and the equivalent of a rent officer to support it. If the commission is to be retained, it could be banded according to value. If we stick with 10 per cent., some estate agency services could be provided within that commission without an extra 2.5 per cent. being levied.
The role of local authorities is crucial. Councils should have a powerful duty to protect and enforce. As well as granting planning permission and licensing a park, councils should have a statutory duty to inspect that the crucial licensing issues of numbers, space, infrastructure, services and amenities are being maintained. Perhaps in partnership with a voluntary agency, they could provide accurate, disinterested housing advice to residents and owners and could take on a role as a prosecutor for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. When the Government have dealt with all those issues, I look forward to the rebanding of park homes valued at less than £40,000 for council tax purposes. That is for another day and comes under different legislation, but it is still an important issue that is worth flagging up.

Mr. David Kidney: I hesitate to interrupt, but my hon. Friend has made a plea for someone to inspect and uphold conditions and possibly to prosecute. The Government are considering setting up a housing inspectorate, which would be independent of local authorities because they might be subject to inspection and prosecution. Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend has said about some local authorities being park owners, as in my constituency, might there be a case for asking the Minister whether the housing inspectorate could take on the role that my hon. Friend described?

Mr. Dawson: That is a thoroughly good idea and I look forward to the Minister's response.
I do not underestimate the size of the task facing the park homes working group, the industry or residents, but they are up to it. The group must set out the rights and responsibilities of residents and owners clearly in law; oversee fairness in pitch fee reviews; ensure that local authorities or an independent organisation play a powerful new role in setting and monitoring standards; and provide an accessible source of solid advice and information. All those interested in the industry should welcome that, as should anyone who understands that fairness, openness, good communication and decent relationships should be at the heart of a people-oriented business.
I am confident that the working party will come forward with some excellent recommendations. The task will not go away, because there is a problem at the heart of the industry. When the working party has fully got to grips with the problem and made its recommendations to Ministers, I trust that the Government will take action during this Parliament. Vulnerable residents have been patient, but they cannot wait for ever. The industry has a future in providing quality, safe and secure accommodation in lovely, mainly rural surroundings, principally for older people. We need the industry to pull its weight.
When the problems are resolved, the industry can provide housing and business opportunities for the living and working countryside that will emerge from the new rural White Paper. Even under a new system of regulation, park homes can be less intrusive than housing, providing sustainable, workable solutions to many of the issues of old age and affordable housing on an appropriate scale for those who have lived their lives in rural areas and for those who, having spent years earning a living in towns and cities, are fully entitled to want something different in their retirement.
I am not suggesting isolated enclaves of older people in the countryside. There are parish councillors and members of the local Age Concern group among the residents of Wyre Vale park. They provide services for their community. One of them, Mr. Dennis Hollowday, is the town cryer at Garstang. He does a fine job. A reformed park homes system can play a uniquely positive role in the new life of the countryside, as can older people. Reform has been needed for so long and the Government are to be praised to the skies for picking up the baton and running with it. Let us see them finish the race in style.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on securing today's Adjournment debate and dealing comprehensively with some of the problems faced by those who own and rent mobile homes.
Three statutes currently regulate mobile home occupation. The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 requires site owners to obtain a site licence from the local authority before any land may be used as a caravan site. The Caravan Sites Act 1968 gave basic protection to all mobile home occupiers living on protected sites. It prevented site owners from evicting occupiers with residential contracts other than by obtaining a court order. The Mobile Home Act 1983 went further and gave security of tenure to those with mobile homes who own the home in which they live and rent the pitch from the site owner.
One of the main complaints about the 1983 Act is that it gave mobile home owners insufficient rights over increases in pitch fees demanded by site owners. Many site owners use a standard agreement drawn up by the National Federation of Site Operators. It contains a pitch fee review clause and takes into account such factors as the retail prices index and sums expended by the owner on the upkeep of the park.
Another factor that causes occupiers considerable concern involves the problems that they face when site owners try to block their right to sell to a third party. A survey by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions found that more than 25 per cent. of respondents anticipated some problem when they came to sell their homes and 51 per cent. anticipated problems because of the park owner. Site owners are entitled to claim commission of up to 10 per cent. of the sale price of mobile homes on their sites. The justification for that charge is that what is sold is an amalgam of the value of the mobile home and the value of the site on which it is placed.
Site residents have also complained of poor conditions on parks. A Shelter report noted that local authority practice in enforcing the site licence conditions under the

1960 Act was "variable". Other problems experienced by mobile home owners include illegal eviction, harassment by site owners who had obtained planning permission, and grey areas within the legislation that are open to exploitation by unscrupulous site owners. The high percentage of elderly people who live in mobile home parks also increases the potential for exploitation.
Council tax is another problem for those who live in mobile homes. Nearly all mobile homes are in band A, which covers properties valued up to £40,000. Many mobile homes are not worth anything near that sum and the council tax banding should be amended to reflect that.
The DETR established a park homes working group last year with a view to reviewing a number of issues related to mobile homes. I hope that the Minister will be able to let us know how its work is progressing.
Mobile homes make an important contribution to the availability of affordable housing in rural areas in the private and public sectors. Compared with urban areas, the rural housing market has a high proportion of owner-occupation at 73 per cent., a high proportion of private renting at 12 per cent., but a low proportion of social housing at just 15 per cent. Demand for housing is significant and includes that arising from more affluent local households, retirees, commuters, second home owners and in some areas summer holiday lets.
In December 1998, the Rural Development Commission said:
High demand from people wishing to move into the countryside or to have a holiday home, coupled with the constraints on the supply of housing, have forced up the price of housing so that it is not affordable to local people on low incomes. In 1991 it was estimated that in many rural areas 40 per cent. of new households would be unable to afford to enter the owner occupied housing market.
Recent research on rural housing found that the majority of new housing in rural areas was built by the private sector for the upper end of the market and that new social housing provided by local authorities or housing associations fell short of replacing that loss by the right-to-buy scheme. It is worth remembering that in the period 1981 to 1991 the stock of local authority dwellings fell by about a third.
As the stock of social housing has declined, so has the option to rent privately. Much of the private rented sector has been sold for owner occupation or converted into holiday accommodation. Those trends are likely to continue in social housing and the private rented sector, suggesting that rural housing needs are likely to increase.
Projected household growth, technological and economic trends and the fact that many people wish to live in the countryside mean that the demand for housing in rural areas will remain strong. Therefore, the price of housing in rural areas will continue to increase. It is important that any further decline in the private rented sector is halted and new opportunities are developed, particularly in rural areas.
Another problem is the under-representation of young adults in rural populations. A high proportion of young people in rural areas live in the parental home—82 per cent. of males and 67 per cent. of females compared with 67 per cent. and 51 per cent. respectively in urban areas.
The supply of housing in rural areas is currently inadequate to respond to the needs of young people. Housing information and advice need to be made more


widely available across rural areas as few social housing resources are devoted to meeting the needs of young people. The private rented sector also has an important role to play in providing housing for young people.
The Rural Development Commission says:
The provision of affordable housing is caught in a spiral … we believe that the time is right for a new rural housing initiative aimed at addressing the problems of housing and homelessness in rural areas in a comprehensive way, bringing together the Housing Corporation, local authorities, Registered Social Landlords, private lenders and the many public, private and voluntary organisations who have an important role to play.
My party has recognised that. We would give councils stronger powers to insist that developers included low-cost housing for local people in new developments. We would also seek to increase the availability of low-cost rural housing. We would allow councils to remove the 50 per cent. council tax rebate for second homes. Additionally, where ownership of second homes is squeezing out local home buyers, we would permit councils to introduce a variable premium of up to 100 per cent. on the council tax or a flat-rate tax to reduce purchases of second homes and/or to require change-of-use planning consent for the transfer of a full-time residence to use as a second home. All the revenue raised should be retained by the local authorities for specific community purposes with no reduction in Government grants.
In conclusion, while the rights of park home owners need to be enhanced, it must not be at the expense or discouragement of responsible site owners. Park homes have an important role to play in the provision of affordable homes in rural areas. A new A-minus council tax banding should be created to reflect the lower value of mobile homes. Second-home owners should not be rewarded as they are under the present system, but made to pay their fair share of local taxes. Councils should be allowed to spend their capital receipts, not simply given borrowing permissions against a proportion of their value and either alone, or in partnership with housing associations, they should be encouraged to build new homes where there is local need. Support for young people in rural areas should be improved to reduce the disadvantage that they face in the housing market.
Finally, given that the overall level of public spending on housing at the end of this Government's term of office will be lower than under the Conservatives, it is difficult to see how any of the problems that I have highlighted will he tackled adequately. However, I know that the Government are concerned about the issue, and I am hopeful that we will hear some good news from the Minister when he responds.

Mr. Simon Burns: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on securing this debate and giving us the opportunity to raise a crucial issue, particularly in rural areas.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) drew attention to the three critical pieces of legislation on the statute book: the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, the Caravan Sites Act 1968—a landmark piece of legislation, which gave basic protection to all occupiers of mobile homes living on protected sites—and the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
As the hon. Member for Torbay pointed out, the 1983 Act went further than the 1968 Act, and gave security of tenure to residents of mobile home sites who owned the home in which they lived and rented the pitch from the site owner. As the hon. Gentleman said, as with the 1968 Act, the 1983 Act only covered owners and occupiers of protected sites. The central feature of the 1983 Act was the requirement on the site owner to serve a written statement on the occupier containing the express and implied terms of the agreement within three months of making it.
The implied terms that are incorporated by statute into agreements between site owners and owners of mobile homes cover such issues as the home owner's indefinite right to live in the home on the site unless the agreement is validly terminated by either party; the circumstances in which a valid termination of the agreement may take place; the occupier's right to sell or give the mobile home to a person approved by the site owner; and the rules regarding succession as they apply to owners and occupiers.
The House will be aware, from the reasoned and reasonable speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, that the vast majority of site owners in this country are decent, honourable individuals who genuinely seek to ensure that the sites that they own provide facilities that enhance the quality of life for those living on the sites. Unfortunately, a small minority—as in many other walks of life—tarnish the good work and honourable behaviour of decent site owners by their unscrupulous, short-cut approach to the ownership of sites.
Regardless of that, three main problems have been alluded to in the debate. The first is the question of pitch fees. Many sources of argument about this matter between owners and residents are due to a lack of transparency. Reports and investigations carried out over the past 20 years have shown that a general complaint is that there has not been enough discussion and transparency in respect of increasing pitch fees. That has done a great deal to sour relations.
Secondly, there is the problem of selling the mobile home and the issue of the 10 per cent. commission fee, a matter with which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre dealt comprehensively. He explained why Shelter did not recommend the abolition of the commission fee, and the reasons given were probably right. However, the fee is misunderstood by residents, and there should be more transparency and greater explanation of the reasons and purposes for the fee so that one can minimise the sense of grievance of some residents.
Thirdly, there is the issue of site conditions. As I said, the vast majority of site owners are honourable and decent people who seek to provide a high quality of life on their sites. However, there are too many complaints concerning the minority who do not live up to such reputable standards. The Shelter report showed that local authority practice in enforcing the licence conditions under the 1960 Act was variable, and that was reinforced by the then Department of the Environment in its 1992 survey.
Other problems are experienced by owners of mobile homes, including illegal eviction and harassment by site owners—a matter referred to by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. More must be done to ensure that local authority practice in enforcing licences is carried out on a more uniform basis and to a higher standard


throughout the country to protect residents, and more pressure must be brought to bear on site owners who fail to provide decent standards.
It should never be forgotten that a number of those homes are valuable—and not only in commercial terms. In a way, that is irrelevant. More importantly, these are the homes of individuals and their families. They deserve as high a quality and standard as any of us participating in the debate would expect in our own homes. Because they have chosen—or, in some cases, have to live in—an alternative form of housing to the vast majority of housing in this country, there is no excuse and no reason whatever why those people should be expected or forced to accept lower standards than those that we would expect.
In conclusion, hon. Members have drawn attention to the Government's establishment of a working party to look into the matter. I welcome that. It will be interesting to see whether the Minister is in a position today to give the House any further information about the progress of that working party, although I fully understand that it may be premature to expect such an explanation. However, if he were able to give it, it would be beneficial.
All of us will look forward to the publication of the working party's report. Hopefully, it can identify areas where there is a need to move forward, and we will then be in a better position to evaluate what action needs to be taken, if any, to enhance and improve the quality of life for the owners of mobile homes.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on securing a debate on this important subject, and on the clear and comprehensive way in which he outlined the issues that we must consider.
I share the belief of my hon. Friend that park homes—sometimes referred to as mobile homes—can play a significant role in the wider housing market. Most park home sites are in rural or coastal areas, and the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) rightly highlighted some of the difficulties faced by people in securing accommodation in rural areas. Park homes can extend the choice and opportunity for people living in such areas—particularly the elderly and couples without children—to live in decent, affordable homes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre made a particularly telling point when he described the way in which elderly people have benefited from good-quality, attractive accommodation in park homes where they can lead a pleasant and peaceful life and enjoy the amenities.
My hon. Friend referred to the issue of definitions, and mentioned that the definition of a park home is no different from that of a caravan.
The Government are in no doubt that park homes have well outgrown their origins as caravan dwellings. In the early days, caravans often catered for people who could not find anything better and lived in a caravan because it was the only option, even though it was not suitable as permanent accommodation. The situation today is very different. A modern, well laid out park home estate with new homes is worlds away from the old-style caravan site,

and park homes—as all hon. Members who contributed to today's debate have stressed—can offer an attractive form of low-cost, permanent housing.
Park homes provide a unique form of tenure which brings its own benefits but can also bring its own unique problems. The resident owns his or her home but rents the pitch on which it stands. I recognise that park homes legislation has not been revised for some 16 years and so may not benefit from comparable advances in mainstream housing legislation. One might compare the protections afforded to private tenants against harassment and illegal eviction with those covering the park homes sector.
I also appreciate the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre that park home sites need efficient and effective controls over issues such as the layout of parks and the scope of park operators to change them, and the conditions in the park, which the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) rightly highlighted. All hon. Members will agree with him that people living in park homes should have the right to proper and decent conditions. However, before we delve too deeply into wholesale changes to planning legislation, we need to examine carefully the pivotal role that local authorities have to play in that area through the site licensing arrangements. We should examine ways to ensure that existing legislative controls are put to best use.
The unusual nature of the park homes form of tenure can sometimes create tensions between residents and park owners or operators. Finding a balance between the needs of both parties is not easy but the Government are committed to ensuring that both get a fair deal. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre will agree that for many people park home life is a pleasant and relatively trouble-free existence. He highlighted the high quality environment provided by a Mr. and Mrs. Ward in his constituency and his stories could be echoed by many other hon. Members who have park homes in their constituencies and observe well laid out and managed parks providing an excellent environment for people to live in.
Research for my Department in 1990 suggested that most residents were satisfied with park home life. More than 90 per cent. were very or fairly satisfied with their home and more than 80 per cent. were similarly satisfied with the park they lived on. Relations between park operators and residents on most parks were also good. More recent research revealed very similar levels of satisfaction and it is important that we bear that in mind. Problems exist, and I do not want to hide from that fact, but the large majority of park home residents have a pleasant life style in pleasant conditions and are happy with the arrangements.
The park homes industry has done much to raise standards in the sector. The two main trade associations—the British Holiday and Home Parks Association and the National Park Homes Council—have developed and refined a park homes charter for their members. It offers residents and prospective residents guidance on their rights and responsibilities and sets out the minimum level of service they can expect to receive from their park operator.
However, as I am all too aware from my postbag and from what has been said in this debate, not all park home residents receive the quality of service that they are entitled to expect. It is clear that a minority—it is only a


minority—of park operators make their residents' lives a misery, either through neglect or, in some cases, deliberate mismanagement. Some may be genuinely ignorant or unclear about their legal responsibilities. Others may cut corners to keep costs down, but a few deliberately and openly break the law. Only a small number of rogue operators may fit into that category but that is no comfort to the residents on the receiving end of their actions. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre graphically described the failings and problems brought to his attention. His image of the idyllic summer evening meeting in Garstang, which subsequently turned out to be a recital of the serious problems affecting many elderly people, was something that the House will have listened to with concern.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre is an active member of the all-party group for the welfare of mobile home owners. The group plays a crucial role in focusing attention on the issues that are of concern to park home residents, including security of tenure, the written agreement between resident and park owner, pitch fee reviews and issues relating to home sale, including the sales commission payable when a home is sold.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre referred to the important role that local authorities play in the park homes sector and he highlighted the good work of Wyre council in his area. Local authorities have powers to control health and safety conditions through the site licensing system and to tackle any problems of harassment and illegal eviction faced by residents. However, it is clear that local authorities' performance in these areas varies widely. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford highlighted the Shelter report, which found a wide variation in local authority performance.

Mr. David Drew: I have listened with fascination to the debate because, like most rural areas, Stroud contains several park homes, which are very well run. One of the problems of the relationship with local authorities is the grey area of who actually provides the services. I hope that the working party will be able to clarify that issue, because at the moment it is too easy for the local authority to pass the buck to the site owner and vice versa. That seems to be where some of the difficulties occur.

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a fair point about the importance of clarity in responsibilities and the avoidance of buck passing. I assure him that the debate this morning will be considered carefully by the working party, as part of its general work, and I can confirm that the need to establish a clear framework to provide greater clarity and understanding of obligations—and, therefore, greater certainty that good practice will prevail—will be part of our objective. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford stressed the importance of transparency in the arrangements so that it is clear who owes what duty to whom, and everyone understands the arrangements for prices. I expect the working party to consider that carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) raised the question of a housing inspectorate taking over the role from local authorities of examining conditions on

sites. I do not believe that would be an appropriate role for the inspectorate, and it would lead to a confusion of roles between local authorities which have existing public health and other planning responsibilities for parks. If those were cut across by another body, it might be a recipe for confusion and a lack of clarity. That is not the way forward, because we want to see arrangements that ensure that proper standards are maintained and appropriate action is taken when sites fail to meet those standards.
Following discussions between members of the all-party group—including my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre and Lord Graham, to whom my hon. Friend paid a well deserved tribute for his long-standing interest in the subject and the hard work that he has done to pursue the interests of park home residents—and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing, my Department agreed to establish the park homes working party to examine the problems in more detail.
The working party was established last year and comprises representatives from the two main trade associations representing park operators, three national residents' groups, the Local Government Association, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the Welsh Office and officials from my Department. It is making good progress. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre knows, it has kept the all-party group closely informed of its deliberations and he has had the opportunity to observe one of its meetings at close hand. I am grateful for the tribute paid by my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing for setting up the working party, and for his kind words about the working party's approach to its task.
The working party is taking a very comprehensive look at the statutory framework of park homes legislation in order to identify best current practice in the application and enforcement of controls by local authorities. It will explore whether significant gaps or weaknesses exist in the legislation that might be remedied. The working party will consider the question, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre, of how park homes should be defined.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) was present earlier in the debate and raised the matter of holiday homes. The legislation covering holiday homes is different from that applying to mobile homes and park homes. The Office of Fair Trading has responsibility for holiday home standards and is working closely with the industry to raise those standards.
Initially, the working party's work has concentrated on the role of local authorities. Its primary aim is to develop best practice guidance on how to make the most effective use of existing legislative powers.
Research commissioned by my Department is informing the working party's consideration of the problem of harassment and illegal eviction in the park homes sector. We had hoped that the Local Government Association would be able to take forward work on site licensing controls through a survey of its members. However, the response was disappointing and few authorities focused on issues of best practice. My Department has therefore decided to deal with this element of the working party's remit by means of a further research project and is in the process of inviting tenders for that research.
The working party is also now starting to consider the perceived gaps and weaknesses in park homes legislation. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre will agree that it is leaving no stone unturned in its close scrutiny of the issues. It will consider all the main matters raised today, including those highlighted by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford
.
The hon. Member for West Chelmsford described three key problems: pitch fees, sale and commission arrangements, and site conditions. He rightly stressed the importance of clarity and transparency in arrangements, and I have already said that I agree. He also emphasised the importance of ensuring that all park home residents should be able to enjoy decent conditions, and I entirely concur with that.
The hon. Member for West Chelmsford asked about the working party's progress. I hope that what I have said has demonstrated the working party's approach to the task. Quite a lot of work remains to be done, so it will be some time before the report is complete. The hon. Gentleman, and the House, will appreciate that it would be premature of me to make any commitments before the working party has completed the review.
Because of the delays with its study into best practice, the working party is having to review its work timetable. It had originally hoped to produce recommendations to Ministers by autumn last year on making effective use of existing legislation, and by spring this year on the need, if any, to amend legislation. However, it now aims to produce recommendations on the former later this year. I know that many people would like quick results, but I am convinced that a careful and thorough approach to such important issues will pay dividends in the long run.
We have to try and take as many people as possible with us. There is a large measure of agreement between all parties in the industry and among residents, and the aim is to secure the best for all concerned. It is important to build on the large amount of goodwill that exists. We must not allow divisions over relatively minor matters to breach the consensus that will be helpful for the future of the industry and which will benefit the conditions on park home sites.
Until the working party has completed its task, I am not ruling anything in or out. It would be wrong to pre-empt its conclusions, as I have said. However, it is only fair that I make it clear to the House that, given the pressure on the parliamentary timetable, it is very unlikely that any changes could be made to primary legislation in the short term. We would also need to consider any forthcoming recommendations for significant change against the background of the Government's commitment to better regulation. We would need to examine carefully the costs and benefits of any change and the impact it might have on the park homes industry and others.

Mr. Dawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and appreciate what he has said about the need for thoroughness to ensure that all relevant issues are properly reviewed and resolved. However, does my hon. Friend accept that many thousands of people all over the country will greet with considerable dismay his statement that legislation is unlikely in the short term? They know that

these serious matters have to be resolved in a thorough manner, but they need them to be resolved within a reasonable time.

Mr. Raynsford: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I too want action to be taken as quickly as possible. However, my hon. Friend must recognise that there is undoubtedly scope for making progress through best practice. We must explore that option to ensure that existing arrangements are made to work better. Also, it is only fair to be honest about the legislative position. The problem does not arise only in connection with park homes: the Government—and many hon. Members—are keen to promote other very important legislation but, although there will be time in due course, legislation cannot be introduced quickly because of the requirement for all legislation to be properly scrutinised. That takes time, and the pressures on the parliamentary timetable inhibit the volume of legislation that can be introduced in any one year.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) raised three matters, two of which were touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre—council tax band A, and housing needs in rural areas. The hon. Gentleman also referred to overall levels of spending on housing investment.
I appreciate that many park homes fall into the lower end of band A, and that residents may feel aggrieved at the banding arrangements. However, in any system that uses valuation bands rather than actual valuations, it is inevitable that properties of slightly different size, character and value will pay the same council tax. That is implicit in any banding system.
Last year, we carried out a thorough review of the system of local government finance, including the council tax. The large consensus was that the existing arrangements were working reasonably well, and that it would be premature to make any dramatic changes. Revaluation is a very expensive operation that cannot be done quickly, as any revaluation has knock-on consequences. We are keeping the council tax under review, and will reconsider the case for improvements to the system if we carry out a revaluation during the next Parliament, but I do not believe that such a revaluation is a high priority requiring urgent action.
I can tell the hon. Member for Torbay that, since 1989, the Housing Corporation has directed funding from its approved development programme to a special rural housing programme, targeted at villages with populations of fewer than 3,000 people. In the 10 years to 1999, the programme provided some 16,000 new rural homes. For the current 1999-2000 financial year, we have asked the Housing Corporation to aim for around 3.4 per cent. of new social letting under the programme to be in villages inhabited by fewer than 3,000 people.
We have also increased substantially the overall level of housing resources available to local authorities. In 1997-98 and 1998-99, the capital receipts initiative has made nearly £800 million available to local authorities in England. That is to be followed by the extra £3.6 billion for local authority housing investment over the three years 1999-2000 to 2001-2002 announced in the comprehensive spending review.
Our guidance to local authorities on the development of their housing strategies makes it clear that they should consider carefully the needs of all groups, including rural


communities, and plan accordingly. We expect local authorities to make their contribution to meeting rural housing needs in areas where it is a local priority. It is not true that, at the end of this Parliament, the level of housing investment under the Labour Government will be lower than it was at the end of the previous Parliament. By the end of this Parliament, the level of capital investment will be double that which we inherited. It does no service to the House or to housing to pretend otherwise.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important issue today. Park home life plays an important role in today's housing market. For most residents, it offers good-quality accommodation on well-run sites. As we know, for others, the picture is less rosy. It is in everyone's interests that we address the problems that blight a minority of parks. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are determined to do so and are anxious that progress will continue, through the park homes working party, to ensure that the legislation works effectively for park operators and residents and, where it is found wanting, we shall look carefully at the case for change.

Education Funding (Cornwall)

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I appreciate the opportunity to initiate a debate on this important issue. I appreciate even more the fact that we now have a little more time for the debate, although I hope that the Minister has not been too much inconvenienced. Some of my colleagues on both sides of the House with Cornish constituencies may want to take advantage of some of that extra time. As my speech was rather tightly timed, I may relax slightly. Although there might be some slight variations of view—there are certainly variations in the interpretation of what has been happening recently—all Members with Cornish constituencies are united across the political divide as to the case for a fair deal for children in Cornish schools. We share concern about the difficulties experienced by schools in matching funding with the important principle of ensuring that our children receive the best possible education.
The background to that concern is the Conservative education legacy that left schools in crisis, nowhere more so than in Cornwall. Perhaps it is no surprise that not one Conservative Member is in the Chamber at present; it would be extremely difficult for them to defend that position. There were cuts in local council funding and an endless revolution in education policy, as successive Secretaries of State felt the need to make their mark. As they could not offer the funding that was actually needed, they offered change. That was change that teachers could have done without, because they had a job to get on with—delivering quality education. Schools were left underfunded and teachers were left demoralised.
The election of the new Labour Government, pledging to make education a No. 1 priority, was, therefore, a cause for real optimism among teachers and parents alike. However, during the past year, desperate letters from demoralised teachers and school governors have reappeared in my postbag—they were not there for a while after the general election—and the reasons are not hard to find. The financial position is especially acute in Cornwall, because the Conservatives took the view that Cornish children needed less funding for their education than children in other parts of the country. Almost £10,000 less was received for a primary school with 100 pupils, and that was £10,000 less every year. A small secondary school with 500 pupils received £50,000 less each year. Throughout the county, that was a great many books, computers, teachers and classroom assistants.
I have never accepted the way in which Government standard spending assessments are calculated for rural areas, such as my own. Although I shall be critical about the lack of change, I hope that the Minister for School Standards will accept that I understand that is a legacy from the previous Government and that it is not easy to change. She might be aware that I raised that matter in debate several years ago under the previous Government, and that I received precious little response.
However, even with our funding shortfall, Cornish schools have always produced outstanding results. In a recent survey, more Cornish schools were picked out for praise than in any other education authority in the south-west. That is due to the dedication of staff and the extremely supportive, although financially poor,


local communities. Parents of children at schools raise funds, but, equally, they provide children with a supportive environment at home; elsewhere in the country, that may not happen as much as it should.
Yet why should our schools receive less funding than other areas, even if they achieve good results with the funds available? I hope that the Minister will agree that Cornish children need the same help as those in any other area. We do not expect special treatment, and we understand that some children, in some places, need special help—for example, with languages—that does not normally apply in Cornish schools. However, the issue is broader than that; it goes beyond the few local authorities that have those special needs. We want a fair deal for our children and we believe that we deserve it.
At the turn of the year, I obtained some figures in response to a question from the Library. The answer was the last thing that I expected—it was certainly not the reason that I asked the question. The sad and surprising fact was that unfair allocation of funds—the differential between the national average and what we receive in Cornwall under the SSA—has become worse, not better, under the Labour Government. Our children now receive even less per head compared with the national average than under the Conservative Government. Every year, the cumulative effect of more than 10 years of decay and delay already does its worst to our children's education system. Labour have failed to take the action necessary to put that right. The debate offers me an opportunity to draw that to the Minister's attention, and hopefully, the matter can be reconsidered.
In part, it is a national issue and not merely a Cornish one. At the turn of the year, the latest national figures from the Audit Commission showed that, throughout the country, expenditure per pupil continues to fall in real terms by £53 per pupil in primary schools and by £90 per pupil in secondary schools. As I have explained, Cornwall's allocations are lower than that national average and are worsening by comparison.
Labour promised "Education, education, education", but since taking office, they have spent two years tied broadly to Tory education spending plans. Of course, it was a manifesto commitment to stick with those budget plans—one that Liberal Democrats criticised. We are seeing the results of that decision. At the general election, people voted to kick out those cuts in education, but so far it is precisely those cuts that the Labour Government have delivered.
However, there is not a shortage of funds. Gordon Brown has raised taxes overall; he has not cut them. According to a recent written answer, the Department for Education and Employment carried forward £121.7 million in unspent funds from 1997–98 to 1998–99, while schools throughout Great Britain continue to struggle for funding. I am sure that the Minister will point out that spending will rise during the years running up to the next general election and beyond, but during the whole Parliament, education expenditure in real terms is set to rise by only £3 billion above Conservative trends. I must compare that sum with the amount of more than £10 billion that would have been added for education, over the course of a Parliament, by the Liberal Democrat proposal for a penny on income tax.
The debate is about Cornwall in particular and, although I do not expect that the Minister will agree with me about the overall national figures, I want her to

address the point that Cornish children are underfunded even in relation to those national problems. In 1996–97, the last year of the previous Conservative Government, under the SSA, children in Cornish primary schools were allowed £69 less each than the average for children in the rest of the country. Under the Labour Government, that figure has now risen to £89 less for each Cornish child. In 1996–97, each secondary school pupil received £84 less than the average for the rest of the country; under Labour, the amount is now £97 less per child.
The differential is significant. In a secondary school of 1,000 pupils, £97,000 every year is more than enough for the books, equipment and repairs that are needed. The Government's funding formula, calculated on pupil numbers, continues to discriminate against rural areas, where there are inevitably higher costs—especially for transport—because of their geography. This year, for example, Cornwall county council had allocated a large amount to school transport, but then found that it had an overrun of £1.2 million. There are also higher costs in maintaining relatively small schools in village communities. I believe that is entirely right, because such schools are vital to the infrastructure of those communities and provide a local education for children who might otherwise have to travel many miles. However, those schools are relatively expensive to support; they create difficulties over class sizes and require extra staff and administration that would not be necessary if there were a small number of much larger schools—as would be typical of urban areas.
Small village schools also suffer from erratic shifts in the school-age population, and the county council has to do its best to overcome that problem by ensuring that the loss of one or two pupils does not automatically result in the loss of a teacher. However, there comes a point where the funding allocation must result in the loss of a teacher, which is a catastrophe to a school that has only three or four teachers. A well-managed school with relatively reasonable class sizes can suddenly find itself a teacher short, with the head teacher having to do more classroom work and class sizes that have suddenly massively increased. Such changes cause devastating problems to local schools. Last year, I visited Tregony school, which lost a member of staff because local parents had literally produced one or two too few children. That loss led to bigger classes, mixed age groups and stressed teachers. If the Government allowed Cornwall the average national funding per pupil, that teacher need not have been lost from that school.
A wider issue is at stake: instead of the "bums on seats" funding mechanism, schools should receive needs-based financial support, so that all schools receive the amount they need to survive on a reasonable basis. Such a formula would allow for individuality of resources, pupil numbers and location and be far fairer to rural areas by leaving the decision making on funding to local education authorities, which are more likely to know the needs of the local area than Mr. Blunkett is. That is not a plea for far more reserved funding to the county—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Twice during his speech, the hon. Gentleman has referred


to right hon. Members by their surname. He should know by now that he should refer to them either by the name of their constituency, or by the office they hold.

Mr. Taylor: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not aware that I was doing that, but I shall try to ensure that I get it right from now on.
The process of increasing flexibility is not one whereby Cornwall county council tries to reserve more funds centrally—in fact, the county council has a record of going beyond Government requirements in allocating funds directly to schools. However, greater flexibility is required.
Over the past two years, a group of Cornwall county council officers, school governors and secondary heads have conducted a needs analysis to determine what funds local schools needed to meet national curriculum requirements and the basic standards mentioned in documents published by both the previous Government and the current Government. "Costing Cornwall's Schools" revealed that a sensible calculation of the minimum amount Cornish schools need to provide a decent standard of education and an acceptable environment results in a £37 million shortfall under current funding formulas. That is a Conservative legacy and we do not expect the shortfall to be made up in one euphoric moment by the current Government realising that a mistake has been made and handing over the funds. However, as long as the problem is not addressed and moves in the right direction are not made, the cries of pain from Cornish schools will increase, especially from primary schools.
Largely as a consequence of underfunding, large numbers of Cornish children find themselves in classes of 31 or more. Large class sizes were the subject of specific and repeated criticism by Labour in opposition, but the startling and unexpected truth is that the problem in my county has worsened since Labour came to power. Nearly half of our primary school pupils are now in classes of 31 or more, and that proportion is rising steadily, despite the commitment in Labour's general election manifesto "Britain Deserves Better" to reduce class sizes to less than 30 in key stage 1.
Although, since Labour took office, the average proportion of pupils in classes of more than 30 has slightly decreased in England, the problem has become worse in Cornwall, with 300 more pupils than last year in classes of more than 30. Cornwall deserves better, and Labour promised better, so when are the Government going to do better? In March 1999, the Audit Commission reported on the issue, saying:
There is a strong relationship between the percentage of larger classes and spending per pupil.
That relates precisely to the problems I have been describing. I might add that a teacher pointed out that bringing four-year-olds into schools as part of the process of giving more four-year-olds the opportunity to start in a school environment results in difficulty in achieving the class sizes targets in both key stage 2 and the classes that accept the four-year-olds.
Labour promised pre-school education for all four-year-olds, but that has had to be done on the cheap, because the Government tied themselves to Conservative

spending plans. To get funds, schools have offered places to all four-year-olds, but it is rare that a proper nursery class can be afforded. That is not good for younger four-year-olds or their classmates in the often overcrowded classes that have resulted. Meanwhile, pre-school playgroups have been devastated by the loss of four-year-olds and the funds that they attracted, and that loss will not be made up by the inadequate Government support that has been offered. Nevertheless, I welcomed the recent announcement of extra support and told the pre-school playgroups that have been in touch with me that some money was coming.
In rural villages, such pre-school groups are often the only form of child care available, but group after group is folding. Prior to 1992, I was the Liberal Democrat education spokesman and I developed our policy in that area. Because we had the luxury of having promised to raise funds through an extra penny on income tax, we could promise parents pre-school education for all three and four-year-olds either in nursery classes, or in pre-school playgroups, according to parental choice. We would have funded premises hire, equipment, training and salaries for pre-school playgroups, so they would not have faced the problems that the current system has engendered, even though there would have been a trend of children moving into more formal nursery classes.
However, the Labour Government have not done that, with the result that, according to the Pre-School Learning Alliance, there have been 20 closures of pre-school groups in Cornwall alone since the end of 1996. Add to that the 28 pre-school groups that have told the alliance that they are worried about imminent closure and the result is that, since Labour's election, we shall have lost almost one in five of all the pre-school playgroups in the county.
Some of those groups are long-established, such as the one I visited recently in St. Austell, where the problems were causing real emotional distress. Although there are local people who want to use the playgroup, it has lost the core number it needs to make up the finances and so enable it to keep going at current staffing levels.
The national minimum wage, although welcome in many respects, is adding to that financial difficulty. I now receive a stream of letters from pre-school playgroups expressing similar concerns and asking me to visit. The closures are a real problem and the money that has been made available is not equal to the scale of the problem. That issue especially affects rural areas such as Cornwall that contain smaller communities, in which alternative support mechanisms for mothers are few and far between.
I receive many letters from Cornish school head teachers and governors who are struggling to cope. Only the other day, I received a letter from one head teacher who described how he was trying to cope with a deficit of thousands of pounds and, at the same time, honour the Government's commitment to lowering class sizes in key stage 1. He writes:
In order to meet this shortfall I have prepared a budget which sought to retain our present organisation. Even this could not be achieved without cutting some teaching time, placing a 50 per cent. class based commitment upon myself, as well as cutting classroom support staff.
The final item is particularly painful in a school where 33.6 per cent. of pupils are on the Special Needs Register. If we are to keep our obligation to keep infant class sizes below 30, we shall be obliged to have large mixed age classes in key stage 2 with significantly less support for children in difficulty".


That letter illustrates the problems facing rural schools. Another local head teacher tells a similar story, saying:
The original building is Victorian … the existing windows do not all even close properly …Although we have 22 per cent. of pupils on the special needs register, we cannot afford any additional teaching time for these pupils, therefore placing additional pressure on teachers to reach targets.
After the introduction of nursery vouchers, the school has accepted four year olds every term. Consequently, the reception class is always over 30 every Summer Term. In fact, the class size has been 38 twice in the last two years. As a class based headteacher, I spend 0.4 sessions in the office. This allocation has not been changed for more than five years. due to lack of funds, yet the amount of administration has significantly increased.
What am I looking for? Above all, I seek a sympathetic hearing from Ministers for the case that the Government's formula for allocating school funds nationally through SSAs desperately needs to be changed. Per pupil funding for Cornish schools needs to be far closer to the national average. The area cost adjustment means that funding is based on local wage levels, which greatly helps the south-east; yet teachers are paid on nationally set scales. We had hoped that the review of that process would significantly alter the distribution. We understand that progress is likely to be slow as there are losers as well as winners. Nevertheless, the movement so far has been in the opposite direction: we have fallen back relative to the national average.
Schools are funded according to average teacher salaries, yet many Cornish schools retain dedicated and experienced staff whose salaries are higher than the national pay scales as a result. I am not talking about a school's local flexibility, which I accept cannot be funded. Dedicated and experienced staff help to achieve results but hurt school finances. In some cases, teachers have lost their jobs because their salaries were too expensive. Allowance must be made for actual school salary costs.
Cornwall has many relatively costly small village schools, but Government funding largely ignores the extra costs—particularly school transport costs—generated by the county's geography. That matter needs urgent review. It is especially difficult to cut class sizes in small rural schools, particularly when the Government stick to funding formulae that are based overwhelmingly on pupil numbers, not real costs. In opposition, Labour calculated the cost of cutting class sizes to be around £68 million, but that figure has since increased 10-fold. I understand that the Government are struggling with real financial problems, but I am not yet convinced that they are aware of the particular problems facing smaller rural schools such as those in Cornwall. The real costs of maintaining pre-school education, including play groups, must be recognised better.
I have not yet mentioned an issue that I always broached with Conservative Ministers, who had a truly abysmal record in that area. I refer to investment in school buildings and infrastructure. I offer the Government a bouquet because those allocations have been much better. Cornwall's allocation this year is probably more than the county expected to receive—and is almost more than it can manage to spend. [Interruption.] But not quite. That is very good news. It will be a long time before the backlog of school dilapidation work, estimated at more than £100 million, is dealt with, but I am not critical of the Government in that regard. Most of the problems are a Conservative legacy, and I believe that Ministers are genuinely seeking to overcome them.
In contrast, I doubt that the Minister was aware that the spending per pupil figures for Cornwall were so poor. I was surprised by them when I requested the figures from the Library in January. At that time, I had no idea what the figures would show or that I would initiate an Adjournment debate on this subject. Having become aware of the situation, I sought to alert the Minister. Although we may differ about the Government's immediate record, we share a general, basic concern about the plight of Cornish schools and the way in which national formulae and systems operate.

Ms Candy Atherton: I am grateful that we have extra time to discuss this subject, which is extremely important for the people—and particularly the children—of Cornwall. I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) on securing this Adjournment debate and enabling us to discuss the issue. However, that is where I part company with the hon. Gentleman and his views about education funding in Cornwall.
The hon. Gentleman said correctly that Labour inherited an appalling legacy from the previous Government, and he touched briefly on the good news that Cornwall has received regarding funding for capital programmes in the county. However, I do not think the hon. Gentleman painted the full picture.
There is a question regarding funding for secondary and junior schools within Cornwall. The county council has decided to give proportionately far more funding to secondary schools instead of junior and primary schools. Head teachers have formed a conference and have argued strongly that the county council—which, although not controlled by a single party, has a preponderance of Liberal Democrat councillors—must address that issue. I urge the hon. Gentleman to raise the matter with his county council colleagues because it is not fair that rural primary schools—many of which he referred to—should suffer a lack of funding as a result of decisions taken not by this Government but within the county.
The hon. Gentleman also neglected to mention the removal of outside toilets in Cornwall. For how many years did Liberal Democrat Members complain about the state of toilets in Cornish schools? Cornwall had the worst record in the country in that regard.

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): New Labour, new toilets.

Ms Atherton: I agree with my hon. Friend. That move is tremendously welcome. I spoke yesterday to educationists who emphasised that outside toilets are a health issue. Children often refuse to go out in the rain to use outside toilets, which leads to long-term health problems. I congratulate the Government on providing the money and signalling the end of outside toilets in Cornish schools.
The Government have made an even bigger gift to Cornish schools in the form of the £50 million that will be allocated through a private finance initiative arrangement to revolutionise the school buildings in which Cornish children study. Three secondary schools in my constituency will be located on the same site, and one of them, Pool, is a designated school for children


with disabilities. The child of one of my constituents is a wheelchair user and Pool school has a bridge over which pupils must cross that is some 30 feet to 40 feet above the road. It is lunacy that that school should be designated for children with disabilities. My constituent's son cannot attend the school and my constituent must travel 30 miles every morning and evening with his son to a different school. Thanks to the Government, my constituents' children who are wheelchair users can look forward in the future to attending local schools with their friends. I welcome that advance.
I am sure that Opposition Members have visited Stithians school. Before elections, Conservative and Liberal Democrat candidates troop through that school in droves, never to be seen again. A week after the general election, the children of Stithians school e-mailed me to say, "Politicians from all parties come and visit our school, but we never see them after the election. Will you be different?" I visited that school and lodged a plea with education Ministers on its behalf. I am absolutely delighted, as are all at Stithians, that it is a priority school within the PFI arrangement.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: If the hon. Lady would like me to visit schools in her constituency, I should be delighted to do so.

Ms Atherton: The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has been a frequent visitor to Stithians, as have other senior politicians. I am telling the truth.
That arrangement will provide a boost to the entire village, of which Stithians school is the heart. More than 30 primary and junior schools will also benefit from the package.
I must take this opportunity to refer to the Redruth, Pool and Camborne education action zone—the documents and preparations for which are now complete—which concentrates on early years education. I have tremendous pleasure in announcing that those documents were printed this week and offer real opportunities to the schools, governors, pupils, parents and the communities of north Cornwall. It is a tremendous bid involving the business community and all the schools, and I hope that the Minister will look upon it with grace and favour when it comes before her.
I could not disagree more with the hon. Gentleman's analysis of education funding in Cornwall. I was recently in a car park when an aggressive-looking lady came and banged on the bonnet of my car, demanding that I wind down my window. I did so, thinking that I would not be happy to hear what she had to say. However, she said, "I had to stop you to tell you how pleased I am with what your Government are doing by putting money into Cornish schools." I rest my case.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) for giving me the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on securing the debate but on securing an unusual length for it—he has a happy knack of doing so.
I shall concentrate on points of agreement across the Floor, and I should point out that it was unfair of my colleagues to draw attention to the complete absence from the debate earlier of Conservative Members. This debate is about Cornish education and there are no Conservative Cornish MPs—Cornwall is a Tory-free zone—and it is only reasonable that Conservative Members should be absent from this debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not refer to the absence or otherwise of hon. Members. The purpose of an Adjournment debate is to allow an hon. Member to put a case to a Minister, so only the initiator of the debate, the Minister and, of course, Madam Speaker or a Deputy Speaker are required to be present.

Mr. Tyler: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is precisely the point that I was about to make—I thought that it would be unfair to concentrate on that issue.
There is agreement, first and foremost, that the situation that the Government faced in May 1997, in Cornwall as in other areas, was dire. The county's education system was suffering not only from the discrepancies to which my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell has already referred—I shall turn to those in a moment—but from a heavy backlog of lack of capital investment in its schools.
Secondly, it is common ground that despite that shortfall, the efforts of Cornwall's teachers, governors, parents and the community at large have produced remarkably good results. Nobody would dissent from that. Thirdly, there is agreement that over a long period—this did not suddenly happen—Cornish children in secondary and primary schools have suffered from a discrepancy.
Since May 1997, the local education authority—Cornwall county council—has not been controlled by a Liberal Democrat majority, but has been under no overall control. During that period, Labour councillors have been happy to support independent and Conservative councillors and appoint them to the chairs and vice-chairs of committees. The chair of the education committee is occupied not by a Liberal Democrat but by an independent councillor. There is a perception—I cannot say whether it is an entirely accurate one—that when the council has been under no overall control, the officers have taken a much bigger role in setting the council's priorities and policies, particularly on expenditure.
The previous Liberal Democrat chair of education and her committee were seeking to narrow the gap between the amount that was being devoted to front-line education resources—the schools themselves and other education services—and the amount retained at county hall. That situation has deteriorated, and the perception of the Cornish Association of Secondary Heads and the Cornish Association of Primary Heads is that county hall now retains a greater proportion of the resources made available to the county. That fulfils no national governmental pledge, let alone the wishes of the people of Cornwall. I hope that the county's officers will be prepared to reconsider that deteriorating situation, which was improving when the Liberal Democrats were in control of education.
I want to underline a couple of points that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell has already made. He will recall visiting with me a small village


school in my constituency and being greeted on the doorstep by the head teacher with the words, "I am delighted to see you, but if you've come with more bright ideas from Government, thank you and goodbye." One of the previous Government's failures was to misunderstand the priority needs in many of our schools, which were for more investment rather than more instruction, and for more resources and fewer requirements about the national curriculum and other national policies.
A period of steady growth and improved investment, unaccompanied by the dramatic twists and turns of national policy, would also be extremely welcome in our schools. I suspect that in every classroom there must be a teacher who is wondering whether that process of incessant change will ever stop. The Government are, of course, taking measures that are good for schools. I hope that they will give teachers confidence that there will be steady progress rather than sharp twists and turns in national policy.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell has said, in the past few years, the discrepancy between the national average standard spending assessment per pupil and the SSA available in Cornwall has increased, and there is no immediate sign that it will not continue to do so. He quoted figures for the financial year 1996–97, in which Cornwall's primary schools received £69 per pupil less than the national average. In only three years, that figure has increased to £89. Similarly, the gap between the national average funding for secondary schools and the funding for Cornwall has increased from £84 per pupil to £97.
Those discrepancies are serious and must be urgently addressed; otherwise we shall be unable to deliver to the pupils, parents and community of Cornwall the education that they deserve. I believe, as I am sure other hon. Members do, in trying to give credit where credit is due. I believe in the Government's good intentions, and especially those of the team at the Department for Education and Employment, but we will be unable to deliver what our constituents desire unless there is a change.
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell said about the capital programme. It is a great relief to be moving towards redressing the backlog of so many years. At the beginning of March, I celebrated the 25th anniversary of my original election to the House. During that period, it has been a constant sore that Cornwall has been left behind in the provision of modern facilities. However, modern facilities are not the whole answer, and there must be an lessening of the discrepancy between the running costs of our schools—particularly relating to the problem of teacher:pupil ratios—and the funding that they receive.
We hope that in the last two or three years of this Parliament the Government will break out of the self-imposed straitjacket of their predecessors' financial restrictions. I hope that when they do so, they will be prepared to attend to the major discrepancy from which we in Cornwall have suffered.

Mr. Andrew George: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) on securing the debate, to which I intend to make a brief contribution.
I should first point out that schools in my constituency are the responsibility of two local education authorities—Cornwall's and the Isles of Scilly's. People on the islands appreciate that the Government have recognised and responded to their special needs and concerns, particularly the problems faced by post-16-year-olds going on to further education.
I want to make three points about the debate on the financial settlement, a subject which has been well aired today. First, schools in my constituency continually complain about the lack of opportunity for long-term planning because of the late settlement of the budget each year. Every year, they are unable to plan for future years because they are given only a few weeks in which to undertake that essential planning.
Secondly, irrespective of the political debate, schools are concerned about the reduction in resources. In the past 10 years, St. Ives junior school in my constituency has experienced a 20 per cent. increase in pupil numbers but a 20 per cent. decrease in staff resources. Admittedly, the Government have been in power for only a small part of that time. Schools have many initiatives thrown at them and are given little time for thinking and planning to implement them. The Government ought perhaps to take on board the concerns that teachers, not just in my constituency but throughout Cornwall and, I suspect, the rest of the country, have expressed about that.
Thirdly, I seek reassurance from the Minister on behalf of schools in Cornwall that in future funding packages the Government will take into account Cornwall's geography and the fact that we necessarily have many small schools. Parents do not campaign to ensure that their children get a poor education, but they often campaign hard to keep small, local schools which provide high-quality education. That needs to be taken into account in future funding packages for LEAs like Cornwall's.

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) on securing this Adjournment debate. It is amazing that whenever hon. Members are fortunate enough to gain extra time for such debates, which is usually an accident, they have no difficulty at all, if the debates are about education, in getting colleagues from their area to join in.
I doubt that there is one hon. Member who does not spend much of his or her constituency time visiting schools and talking to parents about such an incredibly important issue. I acknowledge the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) and of the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and for St. Ives (Mr. George) and the importance that education has for them as local Members of Parliament. I also acknowledge the sincerity with which they presented the issues to the House.
I am grateful for what I think was an acknowledgment of the Government's efforts and, equally important, of our good intentions. I cannot imagine that we will ever reach a point at which people will say, "Enough—no more for education." It is such an exciting issue, there is always so much to be done, and there are always so many frontiers to be pushed that, no matter what any Government do, it will always be claimed that we could do with more resources.
I am inevitably going to talk about a record of which I am proud, but I do not for one minute pretend or claim that we have enough resources or that I as an education Minister or we as a Government should stop seeking more resources for education.
I know that the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell will expect me to remind him that during the period of the comprehensive spending review settlement, £19 billion extra will be spent on education. I am not a brilliant mathematician, but if one adds that sum to the £4 billion extra that we have already allocated, the total is far more than would have accrued from 1p on income tax over the same period.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: In real terms.

Ms Morris: It may be in real terms—but an average of £2 billion from 1p in income tax? The Liberal Democrats would be hard pushed to argue that we have not provided more than would have been gained from 1p on income tax.
Before responding to the points made in today's debate, I should like to acknowledge the high standards of education attainment in Cornish schools. I claim no credit for that, and I am sure that other hon. Members would not do so—it is down to the hard work of teachers, governors, parents, pupils and the wider community. I am delighted to acknowledge that key stage 2 results in the county are above the national average. In particular, I congratulate the secondary schools in Cornwall, whose results for pupils gaining five GCSE grades A to C are 5 per cent. above the average. Even more pleasing, that represents a 2 per cent. increase on last year, which is a faster than average growth for schools with pupils taking five GCSEs.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne would remind me that improvement across the county is not even, which is precisely why we have introduced initiatives such as the education action zones. We want to give more support to teachers who work in the most challenging social and academic environments. With no commitment, I shall of course look with interest at the application from her area to become an EAZ. I have had the opportunity to visit Cornwall as a Minister in the past 18 months, and I have been impressed by the commitment that I have seen.
I want to deal mainly with two issues. I want to talk about the money that comes through the standard spending assessment, and to offer some understanding and reassurance in that connection, and then to talk about the other money—it is not the bulk of it, but it is real money—that does not come through the SSA formula.
Since May 1997, we have increased Cornwall's SSA by £19 million, or 11 per cent. Those figures take into account the change in local authority functions. If we add to that the extra money that we have been able to distribute to local authorities by abolishing the nursery voucher scheme, which has gone into early-years provision, the increase is more than 11 per cent.
I shall deal in a moment with the figures that were cited, but Cornwall's primary SSA per pupil has increased by 11 per cent. in cash terms since we took office, and its secondary SSA has increased by 9 per cent. since

May 1997. Funding per secondary pupil has increased by £110 in each of the past two years. In real terms, since we took office, we have increased SSA funding for primary pupils in Cornwall by 5.6 per cent., and the comparable real terms increase for secondary pupils in Cornwall is 3.5 per cent.
The figures quoted to the House were given in cash terms based on the SSA formula. The irony is that I am having to defend what was described as a growing gap in cash terms because we have put more money into education. We have not changed the formula under which the money is distributed so the more we put in, the greater the difference will be in cash terms. I suspect that had we reduced the amount in cash terms, the gap would have been smaller and the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell would not have sought an Adjournment debate because the gap would have narrowed and he would perhaps have congratulated us.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the formula is the problem. I am not going to justify a formula which, for no good reason, seems to treat children differently in different areas. I cannot fathom why that should be. However, I will defend a system that acknowledges that in different localities there are different legitimate needs and expenses. Unlike other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, I do not represent a rural constituency, but I readily accept that transport costs are greater in rural areas.
When we come eventually to devise a fair SSA, it will never be an amount per head. We cannot come up with a formula on which everyone agrees, but I suspect that arguing for the average amount for children in Cornwall may not be in the long-term interests of Members representing the area. I caution them against arguing that too often.
I have answered several Adjournment debates, mainly initiated by Liberal Democrat Members, but not one has been used to argue that the SSA formula favours them too much and that they want to give up some money for colleagues. That means that some colleagues who care equally passionately about education have to accept a formula that favours them less—

Mr. Colin Breed: rose—

Ms Morris: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for not giving way, but I have only three minutes left.
We tried in vain to change the formula for this year, but we could not get agreement. If political parties do not agree, we face a geographical alignment. We will not get two bites at the cherry, and we did not want to change the formula and get it wrong. We have agreed that, over the next three years, we will try to come up with a formula that is right. The hope that I offer the hon. Gentleman is an acknowledgement by a Minister that the formula is not fair and a determination that, with a bit of give and take and some realism from Members of all parties representing all geographical areas, we can improve it.
The other source of funding, which has not received much comment—probably because the Liberal Democrats think that we have done fairly well in this instance—is the standards fund. Thirteen million pounds has been allocated to Cornwall since the election. I know that hon. Members will welcome the £4,000 to each school for the purchase nationally of about 20 million books.
In the two minutes that I have left, I must stress that we have a good record on class sizes. We have allocated a grant of £760,000 to the county to reduce infant class sizes, and £1 million for capital work in that connection. I congratulate the local authority on coming up with a class-size plan which means that, whereas in 1998 4,362 infants were in classes of more than 30, in September 1999 only 362 will be. That is real progress in two years, progress that was previously undreamt of.
By giving several hon. Members the opportunity to contribute to the debate, I have inevitably not had the time to respond to all the points that were raised. However, it has been an important debate, and is one to which we shall no doubt return.

War Memorial (Romford)

1 pm

Mrs. Eileen Gordon: Civilians are helpless and random casualties of war, and too often their sacrifice and courage go unrecognised. That is why in Romford we want a memorial specifically recognising the civilian casualties of the second world war.
When I first became involved in the project, I could not have foreseen the pictures on our television screens, night after night, of civilians being driven from their country, Kosovo—people made refugees not because of anything that they have done, but because of who they are. Many have lost their lives—civilians placed on the front line through no wish or action of their own.
I detest the intolerance and violence that have led to such ethnic cleansing. It seems to me a failure of reason and a breakdown of civilisation, yet there are times when a tyrant will not reason or negotiate, and we must stand up against him. Thus it is in Kosovo, and thus it was in the second world war.
I have been to Remembrance day services and I am always moved by the depth of feeling, even so long after the world wars. The pain is still strong after 60 or even 80 years. It is right that we honour the service men and women who died in the second world war so that we might be free. It is also right that we honour the civilian casualties—people who tried against all the odds to live their lives as normally as possible in the extraordinary conditions of war. They tried to keep homes going for service men and women to return to after the war.
Almost 30,000 men, women and children died in the London blitz. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and others for their work to get a civilian memorial park in London. There are such parks in Hiroshima and Coventry, and we should have one in London.
My own family were in London during the blitz. They kept being evacuated, but got homesick and always ended up back in London. My sister has described to me how she used to go up on to the roof of her flat and see the fires all around.
On the grand scale of things, one could say that Romford was lucky. On the worst night of the bombing, 55 people died in Romford. However, we are not talking about statistics. Each death was a unique tragedy, leaving scars for the rest of their lives on family, friends and witnesses who survived.
That worst night of bombing in Romford was the night of 19 April 1941. The first parachute bomb dropped at 9.40 pm; the bombing ended at 11 pm. By then, 55 people had been killed and many more injured. The youngest to die was one year old and the oldest was 73. Thirty-eight people died in one road—Essex road—and others in Brentwood road, Hillfoot avenue, Hillfoot road and Stanley road. Whole families were wiped out—the Wilson family, the Barclay family and the Limehouse family of Essex road. The Gill family in Brentwood road lost nine of its members.
There were many tragic stories from survivors. Joan Limehouse was the eldest daughter of her family and had gone out to buy fish and chips for the family supper. She was on her way there when the bombs dropped. By the time she reached home, there was nothing left of her house and she was an orphan.
A service man, Bill Barclay, received a telegram to tell him that his mother, cousin and three brothers had died on that awful night. Bill has said:
I have always thought these are the forgotten people of the war. Every night I cry about it.
There are casualties of that night who have never been named and are "known only to God". Others could not be identified because of the force of the bombing, and 12 bodies were buried in four mass graves in Romford cemetery.
Essex road was left a pile of rubble, yet strangely, one wall survived and on that wall there was left hanging a picture, still in it usual place. It was hanging at a weird angle, but was completely untouched by the carnage around it. That picture was of Christ—"The Light of the World", by Holman Hunt. It now hangs in St. John the Divine church in Mawney road in Romford, with a memorial book recording the names of the Essex road casualties, for in the week following the bombing, 34 of the funeral services were held in that church.
The priest at that church, Malcolm Griffin, wants a permanent memorial to the men, women and children who died that night. The aim is to erect a statue of Christ and a brass plaque recording the names of those who died, and a tribute to all civilians who have lost their lives in warfare.
Coincidentally, our local newspaper, the Romford Recorder, has taken up the same issue. It wants a memorial plaque incorporated into the street sign of Essex road and the other roads where bombs dropped on that April night. It also wants to place a bench in the cemetery where the unnamed victims are buried—a place to sit, reflect and remember. We are now all working to achieve that aim. Havering local authority is considering sympathetically the request for planning permission for the plaques on the street signs and has given us much support, which we welcome. The project will cost about £10,000.
This Sunday, a memorial service will be held in St. John's church to mark the anniversary of the bombing and to launch the campaign to have the memorials in place before the 60th anniversary in 2001. We will be asking local businesses and local people for funds, as this is indeed a community project. Already, surviving relatives have sent money to the Romford Recorder towards the fund. We would appreciate any support and advice that the Minister can give us about the funds that we can apply for, and about whether there are similar memorials around the country.
The aim is to make sure that the people who died that night are not forgotten by the community and by the young. When the Romford Recorder ran the story, many young people wrote in. Steven Halfteck, aged 10, wrote:
Isn't it sad about all the people who died? We have been working about the bombing and we think you should have a memorial. If you did have a memorial we could remember the 55 people who died in the bombing.
It is important that we remember.
At the meeting of the council of the borough of Romford on Wednesday 21 May 1941, it was recorded in note 564 on air raid casualties that
the Mayor expressed the sympathy of the Council with the relatives of persons killed in a recent Air Raid and the Council stood in silence for a short period.

Fifty-eight years later, on Sunday, our present mayor and councillors will do the same. We have not forgotten, but it is right that we should have a permanent memorial.
In conclusion, I quote from Winston G. Ramsey, the editor of "The Blitz Then and Now", who stated:
Let not those who come after forget the victory won by the ordinary citizens of Britain. By their sacrifice of loved ones, they have earned the right to have their ordeal remembered in a fitting memorial.
That is what we are trying to do in Romford.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) on obtaining a debate on an issue of such importance to her constituency, and on the very moving way in which she introduced it. No one can fail to recognise the strength of feeling in her community which came through very clearly in her speech.
The subject that my hon. Friend raises should certainly not give rise to contention in the House. The debate gives us all a great opportunity to recognise the debt of gratitude that we owe to those who served our country, and who were injured or died—and their families—as a result of two world wars, particularly the second world war, in which the incident to which she referred took place.
Each year, at Remembrance day ceremonies, both at the Cenotaph, which is attended by leading national figures, and war memorials across the country, we rightly pay tribute to those who fell. My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to her pride at attending her local ceremony, which reflects the view of many Members of Parliament, who proudly join their communities to remember those who have fallen in defence of this country, international freedom and world peace.
We all recognise that, naturally and understandably, such ceremonies have a predominantly military flavour; the armed forces bear the brunt of war—directly and often terribly. The names on most of the country's many war memorials are of men and women who served in the forces—either at home or, particularly, overseas—but we must never forget that war does not only affect those in uniform. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the civilian population made an invaluable contribution to the war effort during the second world war, as a result of which many lost their lives. I shall say more about that later. They, too, deserve our respect, and should be commemorated.
It was reported in a magazine article last year that it is Government policy that no further memorials of the second world war should be allowed to be erected. That report arose from an unfortunate misunderstanding concerning a village in East Anglia, and understandably caused great consternation not only in that small community, but among the wider readership of the church magazine. As a result, a number of hon. Members received letters from constituents, whose concerns I fully understand. Obviously, I have written to those hon. Members—to reassure them and, through them, their constituents.
I am very pleased to be able to take this opportunity to put paid to the rumour that the Government have imposed—or would even consider imposing—such a restriction. It would be quite contrary to our intentions


and fundamental beliefs. We are very happy to encourage further commemorative ventures. Indeed, I am pleased to say that several such projects are currently afoot, of which the one to which my hon. Friend referred is an extremely important example.
As some hon. Members may be aware, in December, the Prime Minister announced plans for a national memorial at Coventry cathedral. In some ways, Coventry suffered even more than London in the blitz, although it has, of course, been reconstructed following those horrific events. The memorial will honour those who worked on the home front—in the dockyards, shipyards and factories, down the mines, in transport, on the land, and in many other areas in maintaining daily life and sustaining the war effort.

Mrs. Gordon: The proposed plaques on street signs would represent a very simple, dignified recognition of the bombing. The streets have, of course, been repaired; one would not think that anything had happened. Essex road has been returned to its state before the bombing. We want to commemorate the bombing to let the people who live there know what happened, and so that the young will always remember.

Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Although the physical scars of the bombing may have been removed, mental scars among families and communities are still apparent. I was very pleased to hear of her local authority's concern and encouragement, and its favourable indications that that awful night will be remembered on the street signs. That is important, and ties in very well with the church's proposal, with which I shall deal later. My hon. Friend also drew attention to the enormously encouraging interest among many youngsters in this country's history—how their grandparents stood up against totalitarianism and fascism, and the suffering that they endured.
As well as commemorating the service of those who worked on the home front, the memorial will commend their self-sacrifice to future generations. I am so pleased that schools are taking that up. I am also pleased to say that a campaign is under way to raise funds for a memorial to the women of the second world war, which will commemorate those who served in civilian roles as well as in the armed forces.
I turn to the specific subject of civilians who were killed during the war. More than 60,000 United Kingdom civilians lost their lives as a result of enemy action during the second world war. As my hon. Friend pointed out, 30,000 of those were killed in the London blitz alone—quite apart from all those who were injured during those awful attacks. Men, women and children of all ages and all walks of life lost their lives, as the bombing in Romford represents.
Since the end of that war, more than 120 memorials have been erected to the memory of civilians who were killed. Understandably, many of them are in London and on the approaches to the capital—both of which suffered terrible losses during enemy bombing raids. A plaque was recently installed at St. Paul's cathedral, commemorating those who were killed in the blitz. The people of Romford are therefore seeking to follow a well-established, admirable and honourable tradition.
As we have learned from my hon. Friend, a parachute mine was dropped over Essex road and the surrounding roads in Romford on the night of 19 April 1941. In Essex

road alone, it demolished 17 houses, and 38 civilians were killed. Of those, 34 were identified, and their funerals were held at St. John's church, Romford the following week. Other roads were similarly affected; as my hon. Friend said, a total of 55 people died in the locality. The names of the 34 people who were identified are inscribed in a book of remembrance that is kept in the church.
I read with interest and humility the information that has been prepared by the vicar of St. John's church. It is impossible not to be moved by it; my hon. Friend's speech demonstrated that better than I can. A dreadful toll was extracted from that one road: 38 people were killed in one night and several families lost as many as five members. Nearly a third of the dead were children. The effect on what was, no doubt, a tightly-knit and supportive community must have been devastating and, indeed, lasting, which has been shown by the response from Romford.
It is important to say that, although the great conurbations—London and the west midlands are the two I know best—may appear to be great, amorphous sprawls to people who live outside them, they contain a mixture of local communities, many of which include families who have lived there for many generations. The impact of such incidents on local communities in those areas is as great as it would be on more isolated villages and towns across the country. It is right that we remember that, which is why this particular venture is so much to be encouraged.
As my hon. Friend said, amidst the rubble, a reproduction of Holman Hunt's famous painting "The Light of the World" survived, and still survives, in St. John's church. A passage quoted from "Ordeal in Romford" says that
in a sea of devastation, 'The Light of the World' remained—a reminder and a challenge".
I find it heartening that, 58 years after that tragic event, the people of Romford have kept the reminder and risen to the challenge. They clearly still have their civilian war dead very much in their minds, and are setting about doing something to ensure that their memory will be perpetuated.
The people of Romford are also to be commended in that the proposed memorial will extend beyond local loss of life and will pay tribute to all civilians who lost their lives in warfare. The service of commemoration, which is to take place at St. John's church this Sunday, will also be an act of prayer for peace in the world.
As hon. Members will know, it has long been the policy of successive Governments that war memorials should be erected following a public appeal for donations, rather than provided by Government funds. That is because the Government receive many requests—from individuals, groups and organisations—for assistance to fund war memorials. It would be neither fair nor possible or practicable to support one application and not another.
Public subscription also has the advantage of being a way in which the people of this country can make a direct and unmistakeable demonstration of their respect for those who lost their lives. That is what my hon. Friend and the community that she represents are proposing, and the venture has the Government's warmest approval and support. I welcome this opportunity to wish the organisers every success with their fundraising activities.
I also welcome the support from the local paper, the Romford Recorder, which will stimulate further interest in the campaign. I look forward to hearing of progress


and my Department would be more than happy to provide the organisers with advice on fundraising, about which my hon. Friend inquired, and to offer representation at any dedication ceremony when the memorial is in place.
I join my hon. Friend, on behalf of the whole House, in paying our respects to the memory of the civilian war dead of Romford and in expressing our admiration for those who are undertaking this most worthwhile venture to perpetuate their memory.

Green Lanes

Mr. Andrew Hunter: It has been said:
I welcome the opportunity provided by the debate to return to a subject that I have raised with successive Ministers during the course of several years. I do so without apology because the subject is important in its own right and of increasing concern to many people. I refer to the appalling damage inflicted each year on hundreds of miles of the unmetalled green lanes of our countryside."—[Official Report, 17 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 1426.]
I acknowledge that it may be regarded as the height of vanity to quote oneself, but that is how I started my previous Adjournment debate on this subject, nearly four years ago. I have repeated those words today because, tragically, the situation has not improved in key respects. Sections of the country's green lanes are being extensively damaged through misuse by modern vehicles.
The process of reclassifying public rights of way under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 has, at the very least, been profoundly unsatisfactory. Clarification is urgently needed, and has been for some time. More than that, there is growing consensus that we need to adopt a wider land management approach to our green lanes and the countryside through which they pass—an approach that goes beyond merely classifying user rights.
Without doubt, some of the damage to our green lanes is caused by agricultural vehicles—perhaps a considerable amount. Much of it is caused by 4x4s and other recreational vehicles. In parenthesis, I acknowledge that national organisations representing the interests of 4x4 drivers and many 4x4 clubs are environmentally aware and operate extremely responsibly.
My first substantive point is that the root cause of much of the misuse by vehicles of our green lanes in recent times has been, and remains, the reclassification process under the 1981 Act. In 1996, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who was then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, registered concern that legal dedication of vehicular rights was being established on the back of wrong advice from a number of highway authorities.
In the then Government's opinion, some highway authorities were misconstruing the 1981 Act. The present Government, as I understand the situation, have followed suit. In July 1997, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions issued guidance in the form of a legal view that it is unlawful for vehicles to use roads used as public paths—RUPPs—unless vehicular rights have been established in accordance with the Road Traffic Act 1988. In Stevens v. the Secretary of State, of 16 January 1998, the High Court, on appeal, upheld that position. There is a presumption of only bridleway and lower rights attaching to RUPPs, unless and until higher rights have been shown to exist.
However, the judgment in the Stevens appeal went on to say that recent vehicular use could be used as supporting evidence of historic rights and that to rule vehicular rights out before the matter of historical rights had been determined would be to prejudge the issue. That second part of the judgment has complicated rather than resolved matters, because there is now considerable debate and uncertainty over whether it is illegal to drive on a RUPP unless it has been proved that there are historic


vehicular rights and whether it is legal to drive on a RUPP until it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that there are no vehicular rights.
In other words, what should be straightforward criminal proceedings can become complex civil matters. It is therefore no wonder that reclassification under the 1981 Act appears to have stalled in some counties. I submit that it is imperative that the issue is clarified. My own position is that I support those who vigorously argue that vehicular use of RUPPs should be illegal unless or until historic vehicular rights have been proved.
Secondly, I turn to a related point: the Countryside Commission's objective 8, which is to reclassify all RUPPs and unclassified country roads as a new category of byways. I share the concerns expressed by the Country Landowners Association in its submission to the Countryside Commission, and by the environmental group Green Lanes Environmental Action Movement, known as GLEAM, and others.
I argue that this proposal is a step in the wrong direction. If implemented, it would create vehicular rights over many routes where such rights do not currently exist. It would extend the potential to inflict damage on our green lanes. We know perfectly well from the process of reclassification under the 1981 Act that many RUPPs sustain bridleway rights, not vehicular rights. The proposal would extend vehicular rights to hundreds of RUPPs for the first time. Much the same line of argument applies to the unclassified county roads. In a letter dated 24 August 1998, which was generally circulated, the Department confirmed that the status of individual UCRs must be established on a case-by-case basis. Many UCRs are nothing more than unsealed minor tracks. Most important, a significant number of UCRs have been held, after public inquiry, not to carry vehicular rights.
If UCRs and RUPPs are to constitute a new category of byways, vehicular rights will also apply to them. The Countryside Commission's objective 8, if implemented, would expose more of our green lanes to misuse by vehicles. I greatly hope that the Government will, in due course, accept the Country Landowners Association's recommendation that, instead of the objective 8 reclassification, all RUPPs and UCRs should be shown on definitive maps as bridleways.
I want to refer to the management of byways open to all traffic where vehicular rights exist. Some of my hon. Friends feel instinctively uneasy when they hear the word "regulations", and I am not unsympathetic to that point of view. However, there is a strong case for national regulations to regulate the use of byways open to all traffic. The Minister will note that my remarks again reflect the CLA position. National regulations could restrict use to motor vehicles below a certain weight and fitted with flotation tyres, apply a speed limit to all motor vehicles, ban use by motor vehicles during winter months, perhaps, although controversially, make exceptions to enable continued use by agricultural and forestry vehicles if they are part of the ordinary traffic of the neighbourhood, and require all restrictions on use to be shown on signs on all BOATs where they meet other highways carrying vehicular rights.
In the context of preserving such byways, it can also be argued that two changes to local traffic regulation orders are desirable. One of those changes would be to provide that such orders can override any national

regulations on BOATs by adding or removing specific preservations in relation to specific byways and specific types of traffic.
A second change would be to widen the grounds for making traffic regulation orders to include avoiding disturbance to livestock, game or wildlife, and protecting flora, fauna, geological, geomorphological or physiographical features. That proposal highlights the need to consider the sustainability of rights of way not only to maintain their surfaces, but—and I emphasise this point—for their wider wildlife and environmental value.
I welcome the fact that the Minister for the Environment, in a written answer on 5 February 1998, emphasised that wider dimension. He also referred to the Government publication "Making the Best of Byways", which he described as
a practical guide to managing vehicles on byways".—[Official Report, 5 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 730.]
It is unfortunate that "Making the Best of Byways", at least in the opinion of some people who follow these issues closely, is misleading in key respects. First, the booklet states that its focus
is upon unsealed ways which carry public vehicular rights. These include: roads used as public paths (RUPPs) (where rights of way for vehicles exist).
As it stands, that is highly ambiguous. The last phrase in brackets could be taken as asserting that vehicular rights exist on all RUPPs, which is not the case. As has been pointed out to the Government on a number of occasions, the ambiguity would be removed if that phrase were corrected to read "in cases where rights of way for vehicles exist." I find it hard to understand the Government's reluctance to issue such a correction.
Secondly, among the unsealed ways that carry public vehicular rights the booklet lists
routes formerly defined as unclassified county roads".
Surely the Government are mistaken. Some years ago, the Secretary of State, in the Cumbria decision, held that the term "UCR" was only administrative. In the letter of 24 August 1998 to which I have referred, the Department acknowledged that the status of UCRs should be established on a case-by-case basis, and, most important, that a significant number of UCRs had been held, after public inquiry, not to carry vehicular rights. In the light of that, it is hard to understand why the Government assert that UCRs carry public vehicular rights.
Thirdly, some argue that the Government are adding further confusion to this complicated issue by inventing a new definition of the word "byway". According to the booklet,
this word byway has been used in the guide to cover all three classes"—
that is RUPPs, BOATs and UCRs. I use the term "green lanes". Over the years, there has been a Government-led convention that the word "byway" should be the accepted abbreviation for byways open to all traffic. It is argued that it is a dubious practice suddenly to give the word a new and wider meaning.
As time is short in these Adjournment debates, I have been obliged to be ultra-selective. I have touched on only some of the key issues. We can be sure that the problems will intensify and damage to our green lanes will continue unless effective action is taken.

Mr. David Rendel: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hunter: I note the approval of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who follows these issues


in detail. I hope that the Minister will consider these issues seriously. The preservation of our ancient green lanes demands positive action with minimum further delay, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on securing a debate on a subject in which I know he is interested, and has been interested for a long time. We are aware of the concern about damage to green lanes as a result of inappropriate use by motor vehicles, not only from the hon. Gentleman's efforts but from letters from hon. Members on behalf of their constituents, from the early-day motion—mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—tabled by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who I am happy to see is present, and from media reports.
Let me say a little about the legislation on rights of way, and local authorities' duties and powers. The term "green lane" is not recognised in law, but it is usually acknowledged to cover all unsurfaced tracks in the countryside. Not all such tracks carry vehicular rights. Some green lanes carry rights only for those on foot, some for those on foot and on horseback, and some carry no public rights at all, being for private use only.
Public rights of way are recorded on definitive maps. If a way is shown on such a map, that constitutes conclusive evidence of the public rights along the way. Local authorities—usually county councils, which involve two tiers—are responsible for definitive maps. They are required to keep the maps under continuous review to amend them when missing rights, or errors in previously recorded information, are identified.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Does a definitive map always constitute conclusive evidence? I have had numerous problems in this connection in my constituency, and representations have been made to Derbyshire county council. Is it really the case that, when a bridleway is included in a definitive map, that is it? The Trail Riders Fellowship wants to be able to provide facilities for its members to ride bikes on lanes, and intends to challenge the authority of definitive maps, but it is proving difficult to persuade the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to act.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I understand that the legal definition of a right of way is what appears on a definitive map, but I am the first to acknowledge that there can be—and often are, in specific areas—differences of opinion on the names that should be given to rights of way.
The rights-of-way network in England amounts to some 169,000 km, or 105,000 miles, and represents an important recreational resource. Footpaths make up about 78 per cent. of the network; bridleways, for people on foot, on horseback and on bicycles, make up about 17 per cent., and byways open to all traffic, or BOATs—a rather unusual acronym, given that we are discussing routes for people on foot, on horseback, on cycles and in or on vehicles—make up 3 per cent. BOATs are intended mainly for use by horse riders and walkers, but vehicular

uses have the right to use them. It should be borne in mind that the description of vehicular users extends beyond motorised traffic. BOATs provide a valuable network of off-road routes for horse-drawn vehicles. The remaining 2 per cent. of routes are currently classified as roads used as public paths.
The duty to record rights of way arose principally from the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949. Under that Act, local authorities were required to record as roads used as public paths—RUPPs—not only footpaths and bridleways, but ways which, while carrying public vehicular rights, were used principally as footpaths and bridleways. The term "RUPP" was misunderstood, however—perhaps because the Act and the accompanying instructions were not sufficiently clear about the ways that they were intended to record.
The Countryside Act 1968 introduced provisions to deal with those misunderstandings, but again the provisions were applied inconsistently, and problems—albeit different problems—occurred. The legislation was reviewed again in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—on which the hon. Member for Basingstoke made his opinion clear—and provisions were introduced to require local authorities to resolve the legal uncertainty that had grown up over the years about the rights that could be exercised on RUPPs. Local authorities were to review and reclassify RUPPs as footpaths, bridleways or BOATs, depending on the rights that local authorities found to exist.
That reclassification exercise is itself misunderstood. Let me emphasise that no new rights have been created as a consequence; instead, there is certainty about the rights that already existed. One consequence of the 1981 Act was the separation of the issue of rights from management measures available to local authorities to ensure that inappropriate use of ways—footpaths, bridleways or BOATs—does not occur.
Reclassification is not an easy task. It rests largely on historic documentary evidence that was not drawn up for the purpose, and sometimes evidence is or appears to be conflicting. The quality of evidence differs from case to case and from area to area, and, in many instances, must be seen in the local context.
Some authorities have reviewed and reclassified all their RUPPs; others have some way to go. In 1997 authorities in England made some 86 reclassification orders, only a few of which appeared to cause difficulties. Many of the ways reclassified as BOATs see few or no vehicles; some are capable of sustaining vehicular use with no detriment to the enjoyment of others.
It has been argued that ways that were created for the use of cars and carriages 100 or more years ago should not now be open to motor vehicles. I sympathise with that view, but the modern road network evolved in part from the network established in past centuries. When rights that have not been exercised are shown to exist, there is a case for recording them. The question that then needs to be addressed is whether those rights—or any others, if exercised—are likely to cause damage.
That brings into play another key element of local authorities' responsibilities for the rights-of-way network. They are also responsible for ensuring that the use of rights of way is regulated, and is not inappropriate. They can do that by means of their powers to make traffic regulation orders. Such orders can be made for a variety


of reasons, but, in the context of today's debate, the most relevant criteria are those preventing use by vehicular traffic of a kind or in a manner that is unsuitable, having regard to the character of the way and to preserving the character of the way in cases in which it is especially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot. Using those powers, local authorities can regulate use for all or some users for all the year, or at times when ways are vulnerable.
Traffic regulation orders, however, have incurred some criticism as a management tool to protect rights of way, and there may be a case for changing local authorities' powers in that regard. Last year, we announced our intention to consider whether the scope for the making of orders should be widened to include nature and landscape conservation. Also last year, we published our document "Making the Best of Byways". I am sorry that the hon. Member for Basingstoke does not share our view that it constitutes a practical guide to management of the use of vehicles on public rights of way.
The guide was prepared with the help of groups representing landowners, farmers, users and local authorities. It is intended to assist and encourage the development of clear management strategies for unsealed ways, and to set out measures that can be taken to protect them as a resource and to benefit a wide range of users.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the introduction to the guide. The guide does not state that all RUPPs carry vehicular rights. To be included in it, ways must be unsealed and also carry vehicular rights. The sub-set in the document includes some RUPPs, some BOATs and some routes formerly defined as UCRs. Excluded from the sub-set are RUPPs that are sealed, RUPPs that do not carry vehicular rights and BOATs and former UCRs that are sealed. The guide goes on to say that rights of way in the sub-set, which for the purposes of the guide are referred to as byways, are available to all users. As all the ways in the sub-set carry vehicular rights by definition, that is true. The guide does not seek to redefine terms used in legislation, or the rights associated with particular statutory definitions.
Nevertheless, we are aware that there is considerable concern about rights of way. The concern is not only about protecting green lanes, or reclassifying RUPPs, but about procedures for the whole network. Last year, the Countryside Commission—as it was then—set out its proposals in a document entitled "Rights of Way in the 21st Century", which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Basingstoke, and which the commission used as the basis for discussions with national organisations with an interest in rights of way.
Much interest was expressed in the commission's proposals on the objective of promoting a more effective approach to managing vehicular use of rights of way. The strong responses were an indication of the feelings on the matter. Some people interpreted the commission's

proposals as an attempt to increase the number and length of routes that may be used by vehicles. However, that was not the proposals' objective—which was to achieve greater clarity over the rights that may be exercised on rights of way.
Following its discussions, the Countryside Commission has made its recommendations for change in "Rights Of Way in the 21st Century, Conclusions and Recommendations", which was published last month. The commission concluded that it was essential to establish clear arrangements to replace the current system, and made several recommendations to that effect. It noted the interest shown in vehicular rights and the antipathy often shown towards any motorised use. It proposed that the Government should invite the new Countryside Agency to establish a working group of representatives of the main organisations with an interest in vehicular use of rights of way to identify and agree specific proposals for improving both the management and recording of byways.
On 8 March, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced that the Government would be proposing changes to the legislation and procedures on rights of way, as part of our package of measures to give people more freedom to enjoy the countryside. Before reaching conclusions on the details, we are considering the Countryside Commission's recommendations and will be consulting shortly.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Basingstoke for raising the issue. The debate is timely in the light of our recent announcements and our commitment to change.

Mr. Hunter: May I ask the hon. Lady to extend her comments to the suggestion that I made on national management regulations? Does she see scope for those within the Government's thinking?

Ms Jackson: As I have already told the House, we shall shortly be going out to consultation on the matter. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, however, I shall pass on his concerns to my right hon. Friend. It is always possible—whatever the consultation document, and regardless of whether a particular idea is defined by Government—for recipients of the document, and others who wish to respond to it, to offer their own ideas on how our approach in addressing any specific issue may be improved.
As I said, we shall shortly be seeking views from the public and interested organisations on our proposals. Today's debate will be a contribution to the forthcoming wider debate on the procedures and processes for the network as a whole.

It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions

CABINET OFFICE

The Minister was asked—

Parliamentary Ombudsman

Dr. Tony Wright: What plans he has to review the operation of the parliamentary ombudsman system. [80292]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): I announced to the House on 30 March that the Government were about to undertake a review of the organisation of public sector ombudsmen in England. The review, which will cover the parliamentary ombudsman system, has now commenced and is being conducted by a team in the Cabinet Office.

Dr. Wright: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that, when the ombudsman system was set up 30 years ago by a Labour Government to protect the citizen against abuses by the state, it was a major innovation, opposed by the Conservative Opposition of the day? Is it not time to review and modernise the system? Citizens should not have to go through Members of Parliament to gain access to the ombudsman system. That is not the case with the local government ombudsman or the health service ombudsman. All public bodies should be inside the scheme.

Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend. I recently announced the extension of the scheme to include a large number of additional public bodies. The review will be wide ranging. I am sure that the observations of my hon. Friend and others will be taken into account.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Can the parliamentary ombudsman also investigate complaints from Members of Parliament? Many hon. Members on both sides are concerned about the fact that, although the Cabinet Office promised us a Freedom of Information Bill, we have heard nothing about it. Will the ombudsman be allowed to investigate that?

Dr. Cunningham: I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman had suddenly been overcome by political deafness. If he has not heard about the draft Freedom of Information Bill and its progress, he must be the only Member of Parliament who has not.

People's Panel (Public Health)

Mr. Austin Mitchell: What research has been conducted through the people's panel into the delivery of public health in deprived communities; and if he will make a statement. [80293]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): Research was published last October, which included questions on the public's satisfaction with general practitioners and NHS hospitals and on people's priorities for improving health.

Mr. Mitchell: Given the value of the information from the people's panel in emphasising the problems of deprivation in health and changing the targets in "Our Healthier Nation", will that information be used in determining the location and curriculum of new medical schools? Hull university is applying to establish a new medical school that will place particular emphasis on primary care and deprivation in health.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I am glad to agree with my hon. Friend in his reference to the input made by the people's panel to "Our Healthier Nation". I shall draw his comments on medical facilities outside the normal run of things, particularly in universities, to the attention of the appropriate Ministers.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister look into the fact that there is a high incidence of smoking in most deprived communities and that the people who were polled expressed concerns about the relationship between the cost of smoking and improvements in health? One Department is responsible for the tax on cigarettes and another is responsible for dealing with the health problems caused by cigarettes. Will somebody—it might be the people's panel or the Cabinet Office—try to ensure that our tax policies are less in the interests of the Exchequer and more in the interests of improving the health of the public?

Mr. Kilfoyle: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the aim of the people's panel is to feed information through to policy making so that we reflect people's priorities. He will be pleased to know that one of the driving forces behind the recent White Paper on modernising government was the joined-up, strategic policy making and the joined-up delivery that reflects the nature of his question. He will also appreciate the work that has been piloted by the social exclusion unit to take forward that joined-up approach.

Commissioner for Public Appointments

Mr. Keith Vaz: If he will make a statement on the work of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. [80294]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The Commissioner for Public Appointments, Dame Rennie Fritchie, is independent of Government. She publishes a code of practice on making public appointments based on merit, audits Departments' application of her code, and investigates complaints for public bodies within her remit.

Mr. Vaz: I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to increase the diversity in their public appointments. However, does the Minister agree that there is still a lack of awareness among the public as to how those appointments are made? Will he ensure that the new


commissioner advertises vacancies and potential vacancies as widely as possible to ensure that the pool from which the appointments are made includes the widest possible cross-section of people?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we be able to draw on the widest possible range of experience. Only yesterday, I had similar discussions with the appropriate committee in respect of the appointment of magistrates in the Duchy of Lancaster area. It is essential that everyone should have the opportunity to volunteer for the public services that are so important to us all.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the commissioner take into account the political allegiance of those who are appointed? Will the right hon. Gentleman publish a list of those who have not been reappointed in the past two years and those who have and their political allegiance? Will the good lady have the chance to consider the appointment of the director-general of the BBC in that context?

Dr. Cunningham: As the hon. Gentleman knows, all public appointments are subject to the Nolan rules. As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman also knows—but for the removal of any doubt, I will remind him—that the appointment of the director-general of the BBC is a matter exclusively for the governors of the corporation.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: It was a pleasure to see my right hon. Friend in the city of Lancaster yesterday to discuss public appointments on his very first visit as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. What impression did he glean from his meetings with the business and scientific community in that most glorious city?

Dr. Cunningham: It is indeed a pleasure to tell my hon. Friend that I very much enjoyed my first visit to his constituency and to the city of Lancaster to meet leading city councillors and business people and to visit Lancaster university, which I am delighted to say is one of the top 10 universities in the country in terms of its teaching and research performance.

Policy Co-ordination (Elderly People)

Dr. Vincent Cable: What steps he has taken to co-ordinate the work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Deputy Prime Minister and Secretaries of State for Social Security and for Health in relation to services for the elderly. [80295]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): Co-ordinating mechanisms are provided through the Home and Social Affairs Cabinet Committee and the inter-ministerial group on older people. Our "Listening to Older People" events, which begin next month, will provide us with feedback on whether older people think that we have got our priorities right.

Dr. Cable: I express some appreciation that an effort is being made to achieve joined-up government in those matters. Will the inter-ministerial group take account of

the evidence that has been accumulated by the Royal College of Nursing, Age Concern and others that, as a result of resource constraints and rationing, particularly in the national health service and associated services, elderly people are increasingly facing discrimination purely on grounds of their age?

Mr. Kilfoyle: We take into account all the information that is disseminated during each of our meetings. That is a fine example of how the Government are partnering all sectors—including the voluntary sector and the private sector—in our deliberations and in the pilot schemes.

Sir George Young: As the Minister for the Cabinet Office co-ordinates the work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Health in the interests of the elderly, can he shed some light on the extra £500 million a year that the NHS has been told to find to fund extra pension costs? When the Secretary of State got the extra money from the Treasury last July, did he know that he would have to find that sum? If he did, why has it come as a shock to the NHS? The chief executive of the NHS Confederation was reported in Monday's edition of The Guardian as saying:
I have simply never heard of it before.
Is that not another stealth tax on the NHS, reducing the sum available for patient care?

Mr. Kilfoyle: There are two simple answers to the right hon. Gentleman. First, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office does an excellent co-ordinating job wherever he is called upon to take that role. Secondly, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that £21 billion extra has gone into the NHS this year.

Anti-drugs Policy

Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's anti-drugs policy. [80296]

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When he intends to publish the United Kingdom anti-drugs co-ordinator's first annual report and national plan. [80301]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The strategy was launched in April last year. The first annual report and national plan will be published shortly.

Mr. Bercow: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, out of 130 drug offenders referred for assessment for drug treatment and testing orders within the three pilot areas, only 38 have so far been sentenced to such orders? If those figures are accurate, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that available resources might be better channelled into law enforcement measures, thereby providing a more effective deterrent?

Dr. Cunningham: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter point. As the Government have made clear—and as I repeated in the autumn when I announced the allocation of a further £217 million to the work—we want to shift the burden of resources away from dealing


with the symptoms of drug abuse into prevention, treatment and education. That is what we shall do. I cannot confirm the numbers to which the hon. Gentleman referred in the first part of his question, but I will look into them and write to him.

Mr. Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the first annual report of the co-ordinator will reassure the people of this country that successful prosecutions are being introduced to deal with people who possess drugs and, even more than that, that the pedlars in death—those who deal in drugs—will be treated most severely, so that the cancer in our society of drug dealing and drug possession is dealt with positively and aggressively?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) is well briefed by my officials, the Government's drugs tsar and others on the work that we are developing. I know that the hon. Gentleman is closely involved in work on those matters in his constituency. The simple test of the number of prosecutions of people found in possession of drugs is not necessarily the best way to judge the performance of the policy. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must focus more on breaking up the drug-dealing rings, the drug providers and the importers of drugs, rather than simply picking up the young, innocent victims on the streets.

Dr. Brian Iddon: Since legally prescribed methadone causes as many, if not more, deaths as heroin when it is misused on the streets, does my right hon. Friend agree with the latest report by the National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths that we should look again at the way in which methadone is prescribed? Does he agree with Drugs North-West and others who believe that the Department of Health should look at the licensing of safer alternatives such as levo-methadone, which can be given at 50 per cent. dose, with 50 per cent. of the risk?

Dr. Cunningham: I will study the report with care, and I acknowledge the important work of my hon. Friend as vice-chairman of the all-party drugs misuse group. To illustrate how much we emphasise the importance that we give to those points, I should point out that, this week, I had a meeting with pharmacists on the very issue of the prescription and dispensing of methadone.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Minister think that the present laws on the use of medicinal cannabis by those people who suffer from chronic pain and the foul side effects of chemotherapy are sensible? Is it sensible to send such people to prison, as has happened in the past three months in two instances? Mr. Eric Mann is serving a 12-month prison sentence. He is an intelligent adult who has committed a crime—in the eyes of the law—without a victim. He grew his own cannabis and did not use the illegal market. He decided to use the only medicine that gives him relief from chronic pain. The Government, to their great credit, have decided to hold experiments in the use of medicinal cannabis, so why can we not have an amnesty until we establish that the world's most ancient medicine is effective for medicinal use?

Dr. Cunningham: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has acknowledged that the Government await the outcome

of the inquiry into the medicinal uses of cannabis. However, it is not possible for me or any other Minister to take executive action to set aside the due processes of the law while that study is taking place.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Bearing in mind that one of the main planks of the Government's anti-drug strategy is—rightly—education, what assessment has the Minister or the anti-drugs co-ordinator made of the effectiveness of anti-drug programmes run by local education authorities, compared with those run by life education centres or Drug Abuse Resistance Education—DARE? Does he agree that the emphasis in all anti-drug education should be not merely damage limitation but proactive resistance to the taking of drugs?

Dr. Cunningham: I very much agree with the latter point. As for the hon. Lady's former point, a wide variety of drug education schemes are run and we do not prescribe what those schemes should be. As she will know, some are provided by voluntary organisations. I am considering with my colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment how we can improve drugs education in schools, but the principal objective must be to persuade young people that it is not in their interest to get involved in drugs in the first place.

Government Service Delivery (One-stop Shops)

Jacqui Smith: What plans he has to promote one-stop shops for Government services. [80297]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The "Modernising Government" White Paper, launched on 30 March, contains a number of initiatives to encourage joint working between central and local government, including one-stop shops. There will be a drive to eliminate obstacles to joined-up working, including a more co-ordinated approach to property management, and a second round of the invest-to-save budget to fund new projects that involve partnership working.

Jacqui Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, especially the emphasis on co-ordination between central and local government. Can he assure me that central Government will be willing to learn from best practice in local authorities, such as that undertaken by Redditch borough council, which is setting up a one-stop shop and working with local partners such as the county council. the police, the citizens advice bureau and the Employment Service? The council is also incorporating automatic information systems to deal with local people's inquiries in one visit. Will central Government be willing to undertake the necessary investment in technology to enable local people to access central Government services and information in the Redditch one-stop shop?

Mr. Kilfoyle: We recognise that service delivery is undertaken as much by local authorities as by national Government Departments or their agencies. To that end, we are working closely with the local authorities which have been part of the process of devising the White Paper from the outset. I recently launched the infoshop pilots, which are being tested in 16 different local authorities.


They perform the functions that my hon. Friend would like to see in local authorities throughout the land. That is the subject of the White Paper.

Mr. Ian Bruce: What are the Government doing towards employing information technology—which can make one-stop shops a reality—to join up the various services? Has the Minister ever pretended to be an ordinary member of the public and telephoned his Department to get information? An audit exercise such as that would help him to assess how easy it is to get information from his Department.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Yes, we audit how effective the Cabinet Office is in responding to people's inquiries, regardless of whether they are Members of Parliament or members of the public. The White Paper "Modernising Government" contained a technology component, and we have taken two important and basic steps towards its implementation. For the first time, we have looked towards establishing an information technology strategy for the whole of Government. We have also insisted that a senior person of board level in each Department be appointed to drive through the implementation of new technology and to monitor its effect on the delivery of services.

Better Regulation Unit (Liquor Licensing Report)

Mr. John Grogan: If he will make a statement concerning the better regulation unit's report on liquor licensing. [80298]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The Government's response of 29 October 1998 welcomed the task force report. The Home Office is committed to acting on the report's short-term recommendations and has launched a wider review of liquor licensing to examine the long-term recommendations.

Mr. Grogan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the experience in Scotland over the past 25 years of a more flexible system of regulation of the opening and closing hours of public houses reinforces the need for modernisation of the laws in England and Wales? As Allan Charlesworth, the serving police officer who chaired the better regulation working party pointed out, closing all the pubs at 11 pm means that large numbers of people spill out on to the streets at the same time, which increases the chances of public disorder.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I certainly agree that there is a lot to be learned from the experience in Scotland and elsewhere. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who is charged with handling the report, is examining those lessons in great detail. They will be applied, in both the short and the long terms, when licensing hours are reviewed.

Biotechnology

Sir Sydney Chapman: When he and fellow Ministers expect to take action following the report by officials on biotechnology and genetic modification. [80299]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): Ministers will consider the report, to be submitted by officials, in parallel with the conclusions of the Government's public consultation on developments in the biosciences. I expect to make a formal announcement of the outcome of the review shortly.

Sir Sydney Chapman: In the past 200 years, the world's population has increased from 1 billion to 6 billion; three quarters of the world's population is at present undernourished, or worse; and the most conservative estimates show that the world's population will increase by another 4 billion over the next 50 years. Given all that, does the Minister accept that, providing scientists can show beyond doubt that genetically modified crops and foods are safe, the use of such crops and foods will probably be the only way to ensure that the future population of the world will not starve?

Dr. Cunningham: I am satisfied that, with proper control and tests and trials before licences are granted, the production of genetically modified food can make a significant contribution to the problem of feeding an ever-growing world population. I would not say that it represents the only solution, but it can certainly be a major factor for good in that regard.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As a former beekeeper, and pursuant to Question 22, may I ask what advice my right hon. Friend has been given on the distance that bees can fly—their range? What effects will that range have on the cross-pollination of genetically modified crops?

Dr. Cunningham: I have always known that my hon. Friend packed a considerable sting, but we cannot declare a no-fly zone for bees. Therefore, we are devoting considerable research into the matter of cross-pollination so that we can be sure that difficulties to do with hybridisation will not arise. The experience shows that it is not really a significant problem—in north America that experience is wide ranging.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the right hon. Gentleman place in the Library a list of those laboratories that the Government recognise as able to validate the genetically modified or non-genetically modified status of processed foods?

Dr. Cunningham: I am not sure whether we have a list of all the laboratories that would be involved, but I shall certainly provide the hon. Lady and the House with all the information that is available to me.

Public Appointments

Dr. Doug Naysmith: If he will make a statement on his plans to improve the procedures for access to public appointments, indicating when the new procedures are likely to be introduced. [80300]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The Government are committed to ensuring that access to public appointments provides equality of opportunity for all and will shortly publish departmental action plans.

Dr. Naysmith: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In introducing those new procedures, will the Government


bear in mind the unconscionable amount of time sometimes taken to fill appointments, that is, between the declaration of a vacancy and the making of the appointment?

Mr. Kilfoyle: When delays occur, I suspect that part of the reason is the insistence on finding the right person for the appointment. All such appointments are dictated by merit but, in the light of my hon. Friend's comments, I undertake to reconsider the matter.

Political Advisers

Mr. Bob Russell: How many political advisers have been appointed by Government Departments since 1 May 1979; how many have left; and how many are employed. [80304]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): There are 67 special advisers in post. Since 1 May 1997, 28 special advisers have left the civil service, either as a result of resignation or because their contracts were terminated following ministerial changes.

Mr. Russell: Why do the Government need so many political advisers?

Dr. Cunningham: Because they provide a valuable service in helping us to answer questions like that.

Departmental Correspondence

Mr. Ian Bruce: What steps he has taken to encourage Departments to set improved response times for letters from (a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public [80305]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The Government believe that all correspondence should be answered quickly and clearly. All Departments and agencies are required to set targets for responding to correspondence from Members of Parliament and the public, and to monitor and report on their performance. Later this month, I shall address a workshop for those concerned to discuss how we can further improve correspondence handling by central Government Departments.

Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman knows that every single Member of Parliament is aware that he or she is not receiving the service that they and their constituents require. Surely, it is not good enough to set targets of three, or even four, weeks for receiving a reply to a letter from a Member of Parliament, when there is a failure to meet those targets in 50 per cent. of cases. What is he really going to do about that situation? We have just heard about all those additional advisers; perhaps he should sack them and simply employ some good secretaries.

Mr. Kilfoyle: That is a bit rich coming from an ex-political adviser. Having said that—

Mr. Bruce: I have never been a political adviser.

Mr. Kilfoyle: If the hon. Gentleman was not a political adviser, I withdraw the remark.
As for the question about correspondence, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that needs vary considerably from Department to Department. It is grossly unfair to say that all Departments are awful. Some do not meet the standards that have been set, but others do so. The difference is that the Labour Government set out to change things to ensure that Members on both sides of the House receive the service that they deserve and expect.

Internet

Mr. Nigel Evans: What action he is taking to ensure that all Government Departments are fully utilising the internet. [80307]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): As we said in our White Paper "Modernising Government", we intend to use new technology to develop a civil service fit for the 21st century. That includes Departments using the internet to communicate by e-mail across Departments, and with the public and business; to provide electronically a whole range of Government information and services through Government websites and to carry out on-line transactions, such as completing interactive forms.

Mr. Evans: I know that the Minister is keen on new technology and that he is personally keen to get into the 21st century. Will he tell the House which is the most popular departmental website and how many hits a day it receives?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I shall have to come back to the hon. Gentleman with that detailed information. He will appreciate that we are keen to enter the 21st century with the appropriate technology. As I said earlier, we have taken the first two most important steps, which are to begin to construct a Government-wide strategy for dealing with new technology, and to appoint someone in each Department at board level to drive through the implementation.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 April.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. After completing my duties in the House, I shall leave for Washington. I have sent a message on behalf of Britain to the United States of America expressing our shock and sympathy in respect of the appalling tragedy of the murdered schoolchildren in Littleton, Colorado. I know that the whole House shares those sentiments.

Mr. Jack: I should like to associate myself with the Prime Minister's final words.
May I remind the Prime Minister that, in the House this time last week, there appeared to be great confusion on the Government Benches about what exactly a


withholding tax is? Last Friday, the Economic and Finance Council failed to come to an agreement on that matter. In the light of the damage that the imposition of that wholly unnecessary tax could do to the eurobond market in the City, will the Prime Minister give the House an unequivocal assurance that the Chancellor will not accept any proposal to impose the tax on the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said exactly that at the ECOFIN meeting. We shall not hesitate to use our veto, if that is necessary. The great difference between this Government and the one of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member is that we manage to succeed in Europe.

Mr. Kevin Barron: This Government's agreement to pay compensation to tens of thousands of miners and their families whose lives were ruined by crippling bronchitis and emphysema was both welcome and long overdue. However, will my right hon. Friend do all he can to speed up payments? The sad truth is that thousands of miners have lost their battle for life while being forced to wait 10 years to win their battle for justice.

The Prime Minister: I understand that we have already made some payments, but we are conscious of the fact that we need to speed up the payment system. We are giving urgent consideration to that matter and I hope that, within the next few weeks, we will be able to indicate exactly what we can do to ensure that the money gets to the people who have waited a very long time for it, in very difficult circumstances.

Mr. William Hague: I entirely associate the Opposition with the message the Prime Minister has sent to the United States in respect of yesterday's appalling crime.
In the light of today's disturbing reports of ethnic cleansing inside Montenegro, and of attempts by Milosevic to gain control of the Montenegrin police, will the Prime Minister say what assurances NATO may have given to President Djukanovic and what action the allies might now take?

The Prime Minister: We have already indicated to Montenegro that we fully support its position and that we shall defend its position. It is correct that there are reports of ethnic cleansing in Montenegro, but the single best thing that we can do is to make sure that our action against Milosevic is successful, so that ethnic cleansing is stopped there and elsewhere.

Mr. Hague: There is widespread agreement throughout the House that, now that we have embarked on the action in Kosovo, it must succeed. Yesterday, on the question of the use of ground troops, the Foreign Secretary told the House:
We have said from the start that we do not intend to fight our way into Kosovo. We cannot".—[Official Report, 20 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 680.]
May I ask the Prime Minister whether newspaper reports this morning are to be taken as indicating a change in the Government's thinking on that matter?

The Prime Minister: As I said yesterday, the difficulties of a land force invasion of Kosovo against an

undegraded Serb military machine are formidable, as they have been throughout. I have also said in the House before, and I repeat now, that Milosevic does not have a veto on NATO action. All options are always kept under review, and that is sensible for us to do. The right hon. Gentleman began his question by saying that, now we have embarked on the action, it has to succeed, and I agree that it has to succeed. I would also say that we were right to embark upon it, for, if we had not done so, ethnic cleansing would have continued, ethnic cleansing would have succeeded, and there would have been no chance whatever of reversing it. It is only through NATO action that we shall defeat the policy of ethnic cleansing.

Mr. Hague: I have one final point about Kosovo. There is no doubt that the action is taking longer than was hoped initially and that the humanitarian problems are on a much greater scale than was anticipated. With many refugees seemingly on their way out of Kosovo and no immediate prospect of any of them returning to their homes, is it not necessary to prepare to look after them for many months, including into the autumn? That means the proper provision of health care, sanitation, education for children and so on. Will the Prime Minister discuss that matter in his talks in the United States over the next few days?

The Prime Minister: Of course we will. As for the humanitarian action, I pay public tribute to the extraordinary work of the British troops. Their ability to cater for some 600,000 refugees in the past few days is nothing short of a miracle. We continue with the action that we have set out for the reasons that we have stated. I think everybody now knows—it is one of the reasons why we tried so hard to reach a political agreement—that the action that NATO has taken provides the only chance that those people will ever have of returning to their homes. In spite of what some people think about it, the Kosovar Albanians and the refugees—even those who have been involved in some of the most difficult NATO actions—have one united thought: unless NATO succeeds, there is no hope for them.

Mrs. Sylvia Heal: Is my right hon. Friend aware that business people in my constituency and the Dudley and Sandwell chamber of commerce complain regularly about a shortage of skilled people, particularly engineers? Can my right hon. Friend assure me and firms in my constituency that the Government are not only aware of the problem but determined to do something about it?

The Prime Minister: Over the next few years, the number of apprenticeships will increase by 200,000 as a result of the Government's specific funding commitments. We have long passed the stage when we regarded apprenticeships as an old-fashioned idea. Modern manufacturing and service industries need highly skilled, highly trained people. That is why the Government are spending more money than ever before to ensure that people have the skills that they need in today's markets.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Prime Minister note that the Liberal Democrats wish to be associated with the message that he has sent to the American people about the terrible school tragedy in their country? On Kosovo, given that there is almost zero


chance of reaching a worthwhile agreement with President Milosevic, does the Prime Minister accept that ground troops may have to go in to secure peace in Kosovo when Serbian forces have been sufficiently weakened as a result of the air strikes?

The Prime Minister: I do not have anything to add to what I have already said about the difficulties that would face a land invasion force with an undegraded and undiminished Serbian military machine. I repeat what I said a couple of weeks ago in answer to a question from the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown): Milosevic cannot have a veto on NATO action.

Mr. Beith: Is the Prime Minister further aware that the leader of my party will carry the message that the right hon. Gentleman has given from the Dispatch Box about the determination of the refugees to see action continue so that they may eventually return to their homes in safety under international protection? In his discussions with the United States President, will the Prime Minister keep in mind the strong public support for the action taken so far and for the need to take further action to ensure that refugees are not left in their current position, leaving an unstable situation in neighbouring countries?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I believe that public opinion here and abroad is very clear on that point. People have seen what has happened to the refugees and they regard it as not just a tragedy, but an outrage. People realise that we have a strategic interest in ensuring stability in that region. However, there is also a clear humanitarian cause. As I said yesterday at NATO headquarters, that is a just cause that we will pursue until we have succeeded.

Mr. Roger Casale: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the visit to Westminster this week of a delegation of Russian parliamentarians, which was part of a bilateral exchange visit organised by Baroness Smith and the Future of Europe Trust. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Russia has a key role to play in seeking a lasting settlement in the Balkans? What recent contacts has he had with the Russian Government about the military conflict and the refugee crisis in Kosovo?

The Prime Minister: I welcome very much the Future of Europe Trust meeting, and I was glad to hear of this week's visit by the six Russian parliamentary delegates. I agree that Russia has a significant part to play in bringing the dispute to an end. Indeed, this morning I gave an interview on Russian television in which I said precisely that. It is important that we continue to give a message to Russia that the conflict has nothing to do with NATO wishing to extend its sphere of influence; on the contrary, it is a campaign against ethnic cleansing and racial genocide, such as that for which the Russian people stood up and fought so bravely in the second world war.
We have close and continuing contacts with the Russian Government and, as I said a couple of days ago, we are working on a package of economic measures to put to the G8 summit which specifically relate to Russia.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Why was it necessary for the Government to defame Mr. John Simpson last week?

The Prime Minister: We did not defame John Simpson last week. In my view of democracy, he is

entirely able to present whatever reports he likes, and we are perfectly entitled to say that those reports are provided under the instruction and guidance of the Serbian authorities. That is the proper way to conduct democracy. John Simpson can say whatever he likes, and we are entitled to make whatever comments we like.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I fully support the attacks on military installations and other military provisions in Yugoslavia and realise that there will be unfortunate collateral damage, but do we not often get things the wrong way round? We seem to be attacking civilian targets and that is leading to only collateral damage for the military. Will action be taken to ensure that such activity does not take place in the future?

The Prime Minister: The allied effort makes every possible attempt to avoid any civilian damage. Indeed, the civilian convoy that was damaged was hit precisely because it was mistaken for one of the military convoys that have been moving around Kosovo. Milosevic mixes up civilian and military convoys, and people are being used as human shields. We do everything that we possibly can to avoid civilian damage.
I say to my hon. Friend that, in a conflict such as this, there will be damage to civilians. We regret that and take every step to avoid it, but let us never forget that the tragedy that happened to the people in the convoy occurred without NATO desiring it and was the result of an accident, while Milosevic is deliberately killing people and having his soldiers rape women and drive families out of their homes. Let us never forget also that he began the conflict and that we need no lessons from him in the humanitarian care of refugees.

Mr. Robert Walter: Meat is imported which is from animals fed on feedstuffs that are illegal in this country and kept in conditions that are illegal in this country, but no beef has yet been exported from this country. Does the Prime Minister recall that two months ago, when I asked him when the beef export ban was to be lifted, he told me that European Commission inspectors had been invited to examine our abattoirs? Panic ensued in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and at 5 o'clock the following day, the chief veterinary officer faxed an invitation to Brussels. Will the Prime Minister now tell the House on what date beef exports will resume? If he does not have a target date, will he tell us why not?

The Prime Minister: First, the hon. Gentleman's comments on the Ministry of Agriculture are complete nonsense. There have been discussions between the Minister of Agriculture and the European Commission for a long time. The main inspections have now taken place—other parts of the process have still to be undertaken—and as soon as we get clearance we shall be able to export beef. We shall be able to do that much sooner than would have been possible if the Government who brought us the bovine spongiform encephalopathy disaster were still in office. It is this Government who got the beef ban lifted. We will get exports sorted out as soon as we possibly can. As I say, it is we who have had to clear up the mess left us by the previous Conservative Government.

Dr. Ian Gibson: Now that we have decided to produce 1,000 more medical


students, is not the time right to start thinking about training a new type of doctor? For example, in the interests of breaking down professional barriers in the health service and of producing patient-friendly individuals, could not people be taught in the same lecture rooms—occupational therapists, doctors, physiotherapists and nurses? Also, could we not start thinking about places such as Norwich, which has three schools—a research park, a university and a new hospital—which could teach such a course?
Is not my right hon. Friend heartened by how fast we can break down Conservative organisations, when the deputy Leader of the Opposition is talking about public investment in services? What will happen next? Will the Conservatives be using the national health service and asking for the closure of private hospitals?

The Prime Minister: Of course it did not take that long for the Conservative health spokesman, who advocated extending private health care to take over the national health service—that has lasted about three days, which, in my experience, is quite a long-standing policy commitment for the Conservatives.
As for Norwich, it has done some ground-breaking work. I agree that it is right to try to break down some of the barriers in nursing and in the medical profession more generally. Of course, with the £21 billion extra investment that the Government are putting into the health service, we are going to recruit an extra 7,000 doctors by 2002.

Mr. William Hague: At a time when more and more regulations and red tape are making life difficult for business in this country, why have the Government been ignoring their own better regulation task force?

The Prime Minister: It is this Government who set up the better regulation task force, and I can give the right hon. Gentleman some figures. In the first two years of this Government, we put through less regulation than the previous Conservative Government did in their last two years.

Mr. Hague: In that case, why is the Prime Minister ignoring his own task force? That was not a very straight answer, although I suppose that after last week's performance, we should be grateful that it was at least on the same subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I do not know where the Deputy Prime Minister is; he is probably being briefed for Prime Minister's questions next Easter.
Is the Prime Minister aware that the leading business man who said:
We were consulted on the Working Time laws, but our advice was ignored … It's all a bit of a dog's dinner",
is not only the chairman of his better regulation task force, but his own business guru, Lord Haskins? Will he now revisit these regulations and reverse the Government's policy?

The Prime Minister: It is precisely because we have appointed Lord Haskins as chairman of the better regulation task force that we are in a position to consider

the views that he has put forward. As for deputy leaders, I would rather have my deputy leader than the right hon. Gentleman's.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Mr. Hague: My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) is over there—at least he knows what subject he is talking about at each time of the day.
Is not it the truth that, in addition to the dog's dinners already introduced, and on which he is ignoring his own better regulation task force, the Prime Minister is about to flood small businesses with more regulations, from compulsory union recognition to the new food tax which will hit every corner shop in the land, and hit it unfairly? Is it not time that he called a halt to the production line of red tape and cut red tape as he promised he would?

The Prime Minister: I noticed an interesting omission from that list of regulations—the minimum wage. Are the Conservatives now in favour of it? The right hon. Gentleman's question would have had a lot more point to it had he taken on board the comment that I made in my first answer to him. We have put through less regulation in our first two years than the previous Government did in their last two years—and after all, he was a member of the Government then.

Mrs. Irene Adams: May I join the rest of the House in sending my condolences to the people of Denver, Colorado, after the horrific incident that they suffered yesterday? Given that this country suffered a similar incident in Dunblane in Scotland not so long ago, will my right hon. Friend reiterate how important it was to ban handguns after that incident?

The Prime Minister: Because of Dunblane, the events of Littleton, Colorado are bound to evoke many special memories and emotions for people in this country. We were right to take the position that we took on handguns. The laws of the United States are a matter for that country. I strongly agree with the sentiments expressed by President Clinton last night, for it is important that we teach children properly about these matters in the classroom. I know that my hon. Friend and her constituents will look back on the tragedy of Dunblane, from which they are still recovering, and recognise how much better our future is as a result of the action that we have taken.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Like many hon. Members, over the past two or three weeks I have met representatives of many of the transport and haulage companies in my constituency, which are deeply concerned about their future and their competitiveness. Can the Prime Minister tell the House why his Government introduced in the Budget a massive increase in diesel tax of 11.6 per cent? As a result of that, and to try to ensure competitiveness, will he take on board the Conservative proposal that a levy should be introduced on drivers coming from the continent who wish to use United Kingdom roads, as is the case for our drivers when they go to the continent? Failing that, will he consider an essential user rebate for our haulage companies?

The Prime Minister: First of all, let us get the facts right. I repeat that the fuel duty escalator was introduced


by the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported, at least periodically. Secondly, the diesel price at the pump has gone up less under this Government—7p since we came to office—than it did in the last two years of his Government, when it went up by almost 10p. As for the Conservative idea that I believe goes under the name of vignette or Brit disc, which is the proposal to impose a levy on lorries, we shall examine it, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear. Let me explain to the House the inhibition on that proposal. The previous Conservative Government agreed a European directive limiting the amount of any such levy, so their current proposal is against the European law to which they agreed.

Mr. Llew Smith: Would my right hon. Friend give a little advice to a company in my constituency, Tillery Valley Foods, which refuses to recognise the trade unions, even though the majority of the work force are already members of a trade union, the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation? Will he explain to the House how we will ever introduce partnership into industry, for which he has been pressing, when one of the partners, the employers, ignore or treat with contempt the other partner in industry, the trade unions?

The Prime Minister: I shall not comment on the particular case in my hon. Friend's constituency. However, we have introduced legislation precisely to give people the basic right to be part of a trade union and, where a majority of the work force wants it, to have that union represent them. The legislation is fair and just, and gives effect not to the powers of trade unions, but to the rights and wishes of ordinary trade union members.

Mr. Philip Hammond: Will the Prime Minister condemn the visit to Serbia last weekend by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) in the company of Mr. Paul Routledge of The Mirror? Does he agree that any hon. Member making such a visit runs a real risk of becoming the toast of Belgrade?

The Prime Minister: I shall say exactly what I think: that is a matter for my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon)—[Interruption.] Well, just a moment or two ago, somebody was getting on to me about whether we were attacking John Simpson. People have different views on this conflict. One of the things that we are fighting for is the right for people to have different views, whether in Serbia or here. Obviously, I do not agree with what my hon. Friend has said or done, but she has the right to do it, and we should defend that right.

Ministerial Meetings

Dr. Norman A. Godman: When he last met president Clinton.

The prime minister: I last met the president in February, but, obviously, we have remained in very close contact, particularly over the past few weeks.

Dr. Godman: I take it that Northern Ireland was on the agends. Does the Prime Minister agree with the remark of President Mary McAleese yesterday eveinig:
What has proved most difficult to agree on is the emblematic issue of beginning disarmament"?
My right hon. Friend, the Taoiseach and, indeed, President Clinton himself have sought to lower the political temperature and sustain dialogue between the parties concerned, so that an accommodation can be reached which meets the interests of the people of north and south. May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that one way of lowering the political temperature would be to guarantee the impartiality and the integrity of the investigation into the despicable murder of Rosemary Nelson?

The Prime Minister: I entirely share my hon. Friend's sentiments about the murder of Rosemary Nelson. We have put in an independent police force from Kent precisely to carry out that investigation. I hope that people can see that we are making every effort possible to ensure that the people who carried out that barbaric act are brought to justice.
We will carry on working for the implementation of the Good Friday agreement in every way that we can. The declaration that we made at Hillsborough was a way—we thought—that could provide us with a route through this particular impasse, but we will carry on working as hard as we can to achieve that. That is because, first, the vast majority of people—the parties to the Good Friday agreement—want the agreement to work. The most frustrating thing about the whole issue is that they want it to work and are, in my view, all committed to making it work, but we are down to some very great difficulties in getting over the last remaining hurdles.
Secondly, the Good Friday agreement still remains the best chance that people have for a good future in Northern Ireland, because it resolves the constitutional issues and allows us to move to equality of treatment for everybody in Northern Ireland. That is surely what the whole House would want.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Given the uncertainty of the air operations, will the right hon. Gentleman consult our allies in Washington this weekend on the necessity of providing rapid reaction forces, airborne forces and commando forces not only on the carriers in the Adriatic but in other locations around Kosovo, so that President Milosevic may be in no doubt that NATO is absolutely, irrevocably determined to see this through?

The Prime Minister: We certainly are determined to see this through. I do not want to add anything to what I said on the issue of ground forces earlier in our Question Time exchanges. I know that the hon. Gentleman realises that, in any event, at this stage we would be fighting an air campaign. However, as was said by the US State Department a short time ago, and as I said yesterday, all options remain under review. The difficulties that we have set out in respect of ground forces remain, but as I said in answer to earlier questions and say again now, Milosevic does not have a veto on NATO action.
On the hon. Gentleman's particular points, we review all options, but there is a justifiable limit to the degree to which we should discuss wholly openly every single


different part of military tactics and strategy. I know that he will understand that, too. I assure him that our will and determination to see this through is absolute. I believe that demonstrating that will at the NATO summit this week is a big part of ensuring success.

Engagements

Q9. [80330] Ms Tess Kingham: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the people of the city of Gloucester and, in fact, all British people on their generosity in responding to the Kosovo refugee crisis? Does he recognise that many tens of thousands—perhaps even hundreds of thousands—of Kosovar Albanians are displaced in Kosovo, and, it is reported, are living in the mountains, some eating grass, without adequate shelter, health care or any facilities and in very dire need? What discussions has he had with

NATO and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on considering the possibility of air drops to those very vulnerable people?

The Prime Minister: We have discussions the whole time about the feasibility of getting humanitarian aid through to those refugees, though the experience of using air drops is mixed. We have to make sure that any action we take in this respect will be effective.
The commitment and the generosity of the British people should not surprise us, but it is amazing how generous they have been. In communities and churches up and down the country, millions of pounds have been raised for the Kosovar refugees and we applaud that. The Government have added significant sums of money. However, the best thing for those displaced people in Kosovo is that we make sure that this action succeeds.

Points of Order

Mr. Philip Hammond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. On Monday, the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon)—to whom I have written, informing her that I intended to raise this point—disclosed to the House during the debate that she had visited Serbia the previous weekend. She did not, however, disclose that The Mirror newspaper had paid for that visit. Will you advise the House whether, in those circumstances, a Member is required to disclose such facts and whether the hon. Lady should have made them clear on Monday?

Madam Speaker: It is incumbent on a Member to disclose such facts when making a speech, but we have had procedures in this House for some time whereby, if there is a misdemeanour of that nature, any hon. Member may refer the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to do so, he is certainly at liberty to take that course of action.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I made it absolutely clear that The Mirror was paying part of my expenses for the visit, and the information is being sent to the Register of Members' Interests. I did not initiate the debate, so I did not think that that was necessary.

Madam Speaker: It is usual when taking part in a debate, if there has been some financial interest, for the Member to make that clear at the beginning; then we all know exactly where we stand. There is nothing wrong with that. An interest should be made clear at the beginning of a debate.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As one who went to Baghdad in controversial circumstances in 1994, I remind the House that the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Hurd of Westwell, had the generosity to say, first, that he did not criticise me for going and, secondly, that other people should not criticise me for going. These are rather different times, perhaps; Lord Hurd might have been right.

Madam Speaker: I think the House will have heard the Prime Minister quite clearly say that he has no criticism of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) or of any other Member of the House for taking whatever action they think is right. We are all free to take what action we think is right at the time.

Digital Television Broadcasting

Dr. George Turner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a universal service obligation for the delivery of certain digital television services and with respect to the delivery of regional television services; and for related purposes.
Access to television is much more important than might be suggested by television's entertainment content. Television is part of the fabric of today's society and a key provider of information, and access to information can be central to the quality of life. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. May we have a little order in the House so that the right hon. Gentleman—he is not yet right honourable, but he may be one day. May we have a little order, so that the hon. Gentleman may be heard?

Dr. Turner: Information provided by television can help people to find jobs, to participate in community life and to learn about life's opportunities. Access to television can play an important role in preventing social exclusion.
The Bill deals primarily with the important aspects of the provision of digital terrestrial television. In the analogue era of television broadcasting, the United Kingdom has achieved almost universal access to core BBC and ITV services. First, those services reach people—signals can be received by 99.4 per cent. of the population. Secondly, they are affordable. Television sets are relatively cheap: they cost from about £30 in second-hand markets in my constituency. Viewers can watch a rich variety of programmes. BBC programmes are paid for through a modest licence fee for the whole household, and ITV programmes, at no additional direct cost, are funded by the sale of advertisements.
Compared with digital television, analogue is inefficient in its use of the frequencies available. It runs at much higher transmission power levels, and requires many more transmitter masts and relays. A rapid move to digital terrestrial television to replace analogue is highly desirable. There are, however, real dangers to existing access if the move to digital is left to current legislation and market forces.
One threat to access will be the cost to broadcasters of transmitting to difficult locations. Without a policy for complete roll-out, market forces will not necessarily cater for groups living in sparse rural or remote areas. Another threat is the cost to the poor, particularly the pensioner poor, of upgrading their equipment. It is clear that the less well-off will be the hardest hit by analogue switch-off if their only choice is to buy new equipment.
Without change to current plans, millions of people will be unable to get the benefits of digital television. I want universal access to the programmes that people want to see. I want Parliament to protect the interests of those in rural or remote areas and those who are less well-off, so that the whole nation can benefit from what modern technology has brought us.
The Bill will impose a legal obligation on Government and broadcasters to deliver universal access to digital television. It will make analogue switch-off conditional


on a guarantee that those households still dependent on analogue television for core BBC and ITV services will be provided free of charge with the means of access to digital terrestrial broadcasts.
Analogue switch-off may occur on a national or regional basis. In either case, my Bill assumes that switch-off will be considered only when enough households have decided on the digital option either because they are replacing existing, ageing television sets or because they are attracted to the new facilities available with digital. A possible scenario could be to propose analogue switch-off for a time when 90 per cent. of households in a given area are already viewing digital television. In those circumstances, the Bill would require broadcasters to assist the remaining 10 per cent. to access digital. That assistance could involve the provision of decoders or a subsidy towards a replacement television.
Many of the details of the universal service obligation can be left to regulation. It is of immediate importance, however, to put in place now legislation that will ensure that the move to digital increases, not decreases, access.
The Bill will also deal with long-standing anomalies in the availability of regional variations of television programming. That issue is of particular concern to me and to 40 or 50 other hon. Members, because many of our constituents cannot receive the appropriate regional variations of BBC and ITV.
I have been fortunate enough to succeed in the ballot for an Adjournment debate on this issue next week. Today, I shall therefore merely give an example of the frustration caused to my constituents by this anomaly. Mr. Paul Cobb in Heacham, as part of a campaign initiated locally by Councillor Marcus Liddington, brought this incident to my attention. Last year, following a serious sexual assault on a woman in Heacham, Anglia Television filmed and broadcast a reconstruction. The film was probably seen by 750,000 viewers, but sadly not by those living in and around Heacham. Like many people in west Norfolk, Heacham residents can receive only Yorkshire Television. Norfolk viewers unable to see the reconstruction were therefore the very people most likely to have been potential witnesses. The introduction of digital television presents a golden opportunity for the rectification of such anomalies, and we should seize that opportunity.
The objective could be achieved through the use of the larger number of channels available to digital terrestrial broadcasting, enabling simulcasting to take place. That means a transmitter delivering more than one regional variation. Alternatively, the objective could be achieved through the exploitation of other technical merits of digital broadcasting, such as a different deployment of transmitters and power levels. My Bill will ensure that digital terrestrial broadcasting will provide viewers with appropriate regional variations of BBC and ITV television programmes. That obligation will also be linked to the timing of analogue switch-off.
Costs will of course be involved in the implementation of the Bill's objectives, but they should not and need not impose a burden on the taxpayer; nor should the public be forced to buy new televisions or decoder boxes. Fortunately, there is an alternative. Analogue switch-off will both remove the tight constraints on digital broadcasting that were introduced to prevent interference with analogue reception and free up precious frequency

space. The result will be valuable commercial and public service opportunities, and a significant source of public revenue. Those involved in digital television may wish to buy frequency space, but there will be other bidders. The cost of providing universal access can be met by those who will benefit from early switch-off. The costs will be much lower than many currently imagine. On Monday, Chris Barrie of The Guardianreported that plans for boxes costing as little as £25 were well advanced.
Some time ago, in response to a complaint, a BBC spokesman remarked that a television licence
is like a fishing licence: it allows people to receive television, but does not guarantee that they can do so".
A universal service obligation for television broadcasting would recognise that access to television services is a basic entitlement, and would make the delivery of core television services, national and regional, a legal requirement.
I believe that the industry will benefit from early clarification of its obligations—and, indeed, many members of it want that. I urge the House to support the Bill.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on securing time to present his Bill, but I oppose it, because I consider it to be a typical new Labour Bill. It is full of good intentions; indeed, it is positively cuddly and user-friendly. The trouble is that it will not work. As with so much Labour legislation, if this Bill is passed it will represent yet another Labour initiative that is under-resourced and not delivered.
Let me set the scene by describing the state of digital broadcasting in Britain, although the hon. Gentleman has already done so to an extent. The United Kingdom can be proud of the fact that Britain leads the world in both the delivery of digital programmes and the technology that is required for the process. That, moreover, has been achieved without the need for the Government to poke their meddling nose in.
Digital television can be delivered in three ways: by means of ordinary terrestrial broadcasting through a standard aerial, by means of satellite and by means of cable. There is a war going on at the moment: ITV will not let Sky broadcast ITV2 by satellite, so Sky will not allow its premium movie channels to be broadcast on terrestrial television. But that will shake itself out soon: it is in the industry's best financial interests for it to do so.
Satellite television covers most of the United Kingdom, provided that viewers can see the southern sky—otherwise, they will not be able to see Sky television! Therefore, if one lives in a flat, it may not be possible to receive satellite broadcasts. It is also difficult, without using up valuable spectrum, for satellites to be used in the transmission of regional programmes.
As the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk said, digital terrestrial television may broadcast regional programmes. However, most people do not have the necessary set-top box to receive those broadcasts, and there is not—yet—universal digital terrestrial coverage. However, the situation ain't all that bad. Right now, digital terrestrial television is being transmitted on 48 transmitters, providing coverage for 72 per cent. of the


population. By the end of this year, that 72 per cent. will have increased to 90 per cent. coverage. By February 2000, coverage of the United Kingdom population overall will be 93 per cent., compared with the current—as the hon. Gentleman said—99.4 per cent. analogue television coverage.
What does digital terrestrial television provide that is extra to normal services? As I said, ITV2 is available free to air. The BBC provides BBC Choice—which is a type of BBC3—BBC News 24 and BBC Text, which is far superior to the usual teletext. But there is more to come. On 1 June, BBC Knowledge will be launched. It will be Britain's first educational channel.
BBC Parliament currently provides non-stop coverage of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, but does so only in sound. That is not good news. Moreover, only the BBC could have a sound channel on a digital television system.
Madam Speaker, as you and the House will know, the BBC has been shocked that "Yesterday in Parliament" and "The Week in Westminster" have had a massive loss of listeners since they went on to long wave. Well—surprise, surprise—everyone in the industry, other than the BBC's administrators, knew that that would happen. Even the Culture, Media and Sport Committee said that the programmes would lose listeners, although, at the time, the BBC denied that it would happen. Moreover, moving "Yesterday in Parliament" has gained no new listeners for the "Today" programme. That result, too, was predicted.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: This is irrelevant to the Bill.

Mr. Fabricant: Sir Christopher Bland, chairman of the BBC, recognised that there was a problem. In a letter dated 16 April, he wrote about the loss of audience for "Yesterday in Parliament" and "The Week in Westminster". He said—it is relevant to digital terrestrial television, precisely the subject on which I am about to speak—that
Whatever the causes of that loss, there is an unacceptable 'democratic deficit'"—
as he put it—
which the BBC, with its special public service responsibilities, needs to address. The BBC must give appropriate prominence to coverage of parliamentary proceedings".
I should like to make two suggestions: first, restore "Yesterday in Parliament" and "The Week in Westminster" to FM; and, secondly—this is the point—get the BBC Parliament channel on digital terrestrial television up and running, now, in vision. Digital video compression techniques—which are ideal for coverage of Parliament, as there is not much movement in this place—would enable the channel to go live without any delay. So, Sir Christopher, the decision lies with you.
While I am addressing Sir Christopher through you, Madam Speaker, I should remind the BBC, which is bending over backwards to anticipate the Government's slightest whim, that it is the British Broadcasting Corporation, and not the English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland broadcasting corporation. We are still the United Kingdom, and the BBC should remember that when it issues ridiculous guidance notes to producers, saying that the words "British" or "national" are now not politically correct.
The Bill is a hotch-potch of good intentions, but is confounded by ignorance of the practicalities and costs of achieving its goals. In fact, it is a typical Labour Bill. Impractical laws are bad laws, and, like so much Labour legislation, the Bill proposes making bad and expensive law.
If the Bill is passed, it will be yet another bold initiative that will die a quiet death—just like Labour's promises on class sizes, on hospital waiting lists, on the new deal and on transport policy generally and the road haulage industry specifically.
For those reasons, I oppose the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. George Turner, Mr. Peter Atkinson, Mrs. Helen Brinton, Mr. Ben Chapman, Ms Julia Drown, Mr. Huw Edwards, Mr. Andrew Miller, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. David Stewart, Mr. Gareth Thomas and Mr. Phil Willis.

DIGITAL TELEVISION BROADCASTING

Dr. George Turner accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for a universal service obligation for the delivery of certain digital television services and with respect to the delivery of regional television services; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 June, and to be printed [Bill 86].

Opposition Day

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Road Haulage Industry

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the Government's utter failure to acknowledge the crisis in the UK road haulage industry; notes that, despite promising not to raise taxes, Labour have done so in their first three Budgets, so that the Government is raising over £9 billion more from British road users than under the Conservative Government's plans and that the UK now has the highest fuel duties and vehicle excise duties in Europe, which now far exceed any environmental justification; further notes that they have created a crippling costs disadvantage for UK hauliers against their EU competitors, are forcing the closure or bankruptcy of many UK hauliers and inflating the costs of industries that are dependent upon road haulage; deplores the way in which the Government has sought to misuse figures produced by KPMG that are of no relevance to the situation that faces UK road hauliers and notes that independent analysis forecasts that 53,000 jobs will be lost from the UK road haulage industry over the next three years if government policies remain unchanged; commends the Conservatives' BRIT disc proposal as a first step towards reducing the competitive disadvantage faced by UK road hauliers; and urges the Government to end its complacency and refusal to listen to the road haulage industry and to acknowledge that fuel duties and vehicle excise duties are too high as a result of its policies.
One of the great deceits that a Government can play is to pretend that they are helping an industry when, in fact, they are helping to destroy it. One of the hallmarks of this Government is that they present a smiling face at the front, while at the back the dagger is at work. That is the relationship between the Government and the haulage industry. The haulage industry has been made uncompetitive, not because of a mistake, an oversight or an accident, but through a deliberate succession of tax measures in the past three Budgets.
The industry has made its case patiently and in detail in plenty of time before each Budget and has always been ignored. I have five substantial haulage companies in my constituency. Selecting one almost at random, I should like to say that Massey Wilcox wrote to me well before the Budget, saying:
Britain's haulage community already pays way over the odds for a litre of diesel compared with other European countries … For many of us, any further increase will be the last nail in the coffin …I hope you will appreciate the gravity of the situation and lend your support to our cause.
I have done that. I wrote to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor well before the Budget, but my arguments were ignored.
That may be slightly less surprising in view of another letter that was written to the Prime Minister by Reeve Transport Services, which is based in Sedgefield. Mr. G. Reeve, the proprietor, set out his concerns about the plight of the industry and asked that his Member of Parliament should at least understand the gravity of the situation. He then reported:
I have just today received a post card from the Foreign Office Eastern Adriatic Department acknowledging my letter to you and to thank me for my interest about the situation in Kosovo!

That graphically illustrates the interest that the Prime Minister has taken not just in his constituency, but in the haulage industry generally. Many other hon. Members will have received similar letters and will have been exasperated by the inaction of the Treasury and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
The first thing that the Chief Secretary should do in the debate is acknowledge the scale of the problem and the gravity of the situation facing that important industry. The problem affects not just the haulage industry as narrowly defined; agriculture, forestry, quarrying, the coal industry and the retail industry are all affected, indirectly or directly, by the Government's economic policies.

Kali Mountford: The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by referring to the tax burden on industries, particularly the haulage industry. I note that he was a Treasury Minister when the fuel escalator was introduced. Will he explain to the House and perhaps to the people who wrote to him the thinking of the Government at the time and the purpose of that tax?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes. I shall refer directly to the fuel escalator later in my speech.
Let me note now, however, that the Government are imposing an additional £25 billion tax burden on the industries about which the hon. Lady purports to be concerned. If she is worried about the burden on industry—that was the implication of her remarks—what is she doing to get the measures in the Budget reversed?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall give way in due course, when I have made further progress with my speech and directly addressed the issue of the fuel escalator.
It is not just a matter of fuel; it is a double burden of high vehicle excise duty and high fuel duties, both of which are way above continental rates. In the Finance Bill that is now before the House, the Government are further increasing the vehicle excise duty on some heavy lorries to the staggering sum of £5,750 a year. That is several times the highest rate in any other European Union country.
The Government excuse their action by saying that they want to penalise lorries for using heavy axle weights and encourage hauliers to fit an extra sixth axle to their units. However, the provision will not have that effect. Had the Government listened to the industry or consulted before taking action, they would know that fitting an extra sixth axle is not just more expensive, but increases fuel consumption and the Government are increasing the cost of fuel. It is another example of a contradictory policy pulling in two directions at once. The Government are hitting the industry with higher road tax and higher fuel duties.
I now turn to the fuel escalator.

Jacqui Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Perhaps the hon. Lady should first hear what I am about to say.
The Government inherited a fuel escalator of 5 per cent. a year as Labour Back Benchers are now aware. They have now increased the escalator to 6 per cent. It is not a trivial amount. By the end of this Parliament, that increase will raise an extra £1 billion a year from diesel duty alone, which represents only a minority of hydrocarbon revenue. However, the Government also introduced an extra Budget, with more taxation. Not content with the 6 per cent. real-terms increase, they have targeted diesel and singled out industry for extra increases. This year, the price of diesel will rise by a staggering 12 per cent. in addition to the increases in the last two Budgets.
We believe that the time has come to stop the escalator. Any justification for it has now been removed.

Jacqui Smith: May I perhaps have an answer today to the question that I asked the right hon. Gentleman yesterday? On the basis that he is reiterating the policy of withdrawing the fuel escalator, how would the Opposition fund the £1.6 billion black hole that they would open up in the public finances?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I gave the hon. Lady an answer yesterday. I cannot give her the means to understand it, but I can repeat it. The Government's abject and continuing failure to reform the welfare state has created a gap between the plans that we left behind and the expenditure that they are now incurring. If the Government got back to our social security expenditure profile, an equivalent amount of revenue would be available.
Over this Parliament, the Government will be raising an extra £40 billion by way of taxation—and that is just from taxes announced in their first three Budgets. That is a colossal additional burden on British people and industry. We are proposing to give back one small part of that to the people who earned the money in the first place.

Mr. Tom King: Is my right hon. Friend sure that the British people will actually pay those increases and carry that tax burden? Will he comment on the stories that I have heard that overnight ferries to the continent carry a substantial number of lorries at cheap rates which fill up with fuel on the continent, saving £380, and then return to this country? Does he have any evidence of that?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, I do. My right hon. Friend will be familiar with the firm of Frampton's in Somerset. Mr. Frampton has written to the Prime Minister to point out that each of his lorries can save £592 every time it fills up in another continental country. That is the cost to the Exchequer; it also illustrates the colossal loss of competitiveness faced by British hauliers unless they can avail themselves of foreign filling stations.
It was never intended that the fuel escalator should continue indefinitely. Alcohol taxation is an example that I have given the House previously. The previous Government had a similar increase, year-on-year, but, faced with similar problems of cross-border shopping and

smuggling, we froze alcohol duties in our last two Budgets and cut duty on spirits, particularly in light of representations made by the Scotch whisky industry.

Ms Dari Taylor: How much does it cost a lorry to travel across the sea and back? How much does it cost ordinary people to do that? That answer should tell us that there are no savings whatever.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is entirely wrong. It costs a great deal less to send a tractor unit across to the continent on a ferry than the amount saved by filling up in a foreign port. If she believes that this is not a problem, why does she not support our demand for an independent and impartial study into the matter, to be published by the Government, to show all the comparative costs? That suggestion—as with all our suggestions and those from the haulage industry to try to get to the bottom of the matter—has been turned down by the Government. I can confirm that lorries and tractor units from my constituency are travelling to the continent to take advantage of the duty differential.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Is not the most disingenuous aspect of all this the Government's persistence in maintaining that a KPMG report somehow supports the notion that transport costs in this country are cheaper than elsewhere in Europe, when the report says no such thing? Is it not totally disingenuous of the Government to continue to rely on and abuse that report?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is entirely right. One of the most threadbare excuses used by the Government for continuing with their policy is the existence of this two-year-old report, which was commissioned by the Canadian Government and looked into general transport costs. It concluded that those costs were, to some extent, lower in this country simply because of what the report referred to as the "compact market area"—the fact that, in the UK, many factories are comparatively near their domestic customers. It passed no judgment on costs per tonne per mile, which is the subject at the bottom of this debate. If the Government cannot do better than to recycle an old study, that shows the weakness of their argument.

Mr. Owen Paterson: I have a copy of the KPMG report in my hand. Yesterday, I rang up Mr. Glenn Mair, the project manager in Vancouver. The report is a comparison of business costs in the G7 countries and Austria, and it does not include the Dutch and Belgian figures, which the Deputy Prime Minister cited last week. It is a comparison of business costs and, as Mr. Mair said to me yesterday, the road freight component is very limited. Only six pages out of 156 refer to transportation: it is not a detailed analysis of the UK trucking industry. KPMG in Canada actually asked KPMG in London to talk to the Minister of Transport on the day of the truckers' rally to warn him not to misinterpret the report.

The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. There must be a response from the right hon. Member who is at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) makes a very


serious point. It now seems that the Government are misinterpreting the report, even though they were warned about doing so by its authors.

Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am not misleading the House in any way: I am responding to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire. If he is right, it appears that the Government are guilty of misleading the House.

Dr. Reid: Not only did the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) mislead the House—no doubt accidentally—but the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) perpetuated that misleading of the House.
Not only did I speak to KPMG before I made those comments, but its representatives were with me at the press briefing and answered questions. In front of the press, I asked them whether what I had said was an accurate reflection of their report, and they answered, "Yes." I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw what he said and its implications. There was no misinterpretation. KPMG representatives were sitting within 5 yd of me when I briefed the press, and they were asked specifically if my version of the report was accurate. I hope that the hon. Member for North Shropshire will do the honourable thing and withdraw the insinuation that my briefing of the press was done without KPMG's knowledge, against its advice or contrary to its interpretation of the report.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If what the right hon. Gentleman says is correct, why has KPMG not made a public statement on the matter?

Mr. Paterson: rose—

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire to get to the bottom of the matter, but nothing alters the fact that the Government have used the report in a way that was not intended by the original authors. That is my clear understanding and it has not been contradicted by KPMG.

Mr. Paterson: I simply reported a telephone conversation that I had yesterday with the project manager in charge of preparing the report, which is a comparison of all business costs in G7 countries and Austria. I can find no mention of Belgium or the Netherlands, although the Deputy Prime Minister cited figures for those countries in Prime Minister's Question Time last week. Mr. Mair told me that the Dutch and Belgian figures could not possibly be from the KPMG report. Even the Deputy Prime Minister can recognise flags, and neither the Dutch nor the Belgian flag is on the front cover.

Dr. Reid: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, I enjoy the robust exchanges of the House.

Mr. Tom King: That is not a point of order.

Dr. Reid: It is a point of order and honour, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to make it. The clear

imputation of the hon. Member for North Shropshire was that I had misled the House and the country by my references to KPMG. I have assured the House not only that I did not do so, but that the KPMG personnel present at the press briefing that I gave, when asked specifically whether my representation of the report was accurate, said that it was. Through you, Madam Speaker, I once again ask the hon. Member for North Shropshire, if he is an honourable gentleman, to withdraw the imputation that he has made.

Madam Speaker: This is barely a point of order for me. It is a matter of very ferocious argument, but hon. Members are responsible for the statements that they make in the House and the debate will have to continue on that basis. The statement that has been made will be challenged on the Floor of the House in the debate, and no doubt for some days to come.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire accurately described a telephone conversation that he had, and he has relayed the substance of that conversation for the benefit of the House. I find nothing improper in that. It remains the case that, if the only study that the Government can produce is one drawn up for the Canadian Government using data that are two years old, that shows how threadbare is this Government's case. Nothing has altered that.

Mr. John Bercow: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subjects of disingenuousness and of taxation by stealth, will he recall, for the benefit of the House, the letter that appeared in The Times of 15 March from Mr. David Green, the director-general of the Freight Transport Association? It was signed by many other business leaders, who complained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had signally failed in his Budget speech even to refer to the massive increase in diesel fuel duties. Is that not entirely emblematic of the Government's approach to these important matters?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agree: it is entirely in character for the Government and for the Chancellor to refuse to reveal, in a long Budget statement, many matters of substance, including these colossal tax-raising measures. They have rendered an entire British industry uncompetitive with Europe.

Ms Joan Walley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we have to be honourable if we are to proceed with the debate? The right hon. Gentleman was Paymaster General in the previous Government when the vehicle fuel escalator duty was introduced. Is the House not entitled to know the reasons for that introduction, and the direct relationship with carbon dioxide emissions?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Lady is going back a long way. I have dealt with the fuel escalator and given our reasons for ending it. The hon. Lady will have to accept that it is this Government who persist with an escalator that is long past its sell-by date. Indeed, they have increased it, despite representations from the haulage industry. The industry has a rock-solid case, but the Government have blocked their ears to it. That is a


standing indictment of the Government's attitude to business. The hon. Lady's question would be better directed to Ministers.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I want to make some progress before I give way again.
We are entitled to ask who the beneficiaries of the policy are. We have heard already that the French Treasury is benefiting from British firms taking lorries to the continent to fill up with diesel. However, I regret to say that the paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland are the beneficiaries of the massive and continuing smuggling of duties from the Republic.
That problem was also pointed out to the Government in plenty of time for the Budget. The Petrol Retailers Association wrote to the Treasury last year, and stated:
some 160,000 tonnes of fuel were being smuggled from south of the border with a loss to the Treasury in excess of £100 million. The price differential between Northern Ireland and the Republic has led to a huge trade in smuggling products. The effect on the retail petrol industry in the Province has been catastrophic.
In a reply from an official, all that the Government did was to state that, although £100 million is a great deal of money, it is not necessarily very large compared to the total yield of £20 billion from hydrocarbon oils. That is utterly complacent and irresponsible. It is reported that that smuggling operation is not being conducted by legitimate traders—almost by definition such an operation is illegal—and that at least some of the profit is finding its way into the hands of the paramilitaries.
When in opposition, the Prime Minister was fond of saying that he wanted to be tough on crime and on the causes of crime. Here we have a cause of crime: a large and growing differential between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union. We should be concerned not only by the loss of revenue, but by the continuing erosion of British jobs in a British industry that is caused by that differential.
What is strange is that the Government are committed to tax harmonisation in the European Union. The Paymaster General chairs a committee in Brussels that deals with what is described as "unfair tax competition". That amounts to raising United Kingdom taxes to EU levels, when those taxes are alleged to be unfair. Why are the Government doing that, when, in this country, they are creating unfair tax competition between our haulage industry and that on the continent? Will the Chief Secretary refer the whole issue to that committee, chaired by another Treasury Minister, to find out what can be done about the unfair tax competition being suffered by British hauliers?
We have another suggestion—that we should tackle the question of the vignette, or road charge, that British hauliers pay when they travel on German roads, in the Benelux countries or in some other countries of the EU. We propose that a similar or equivalent charge, called a Brit disc, be levied on British hauliers and foreign lorries visiting the UK, the revenue from which could be used to reduce vehicle excise duty. That would not solve the

whole problem, and it would certainly not solve it quickly. However, the idea has received the support of the trade associations and individual hauliers; I ask the Government to take it seriously.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend clearly points out what happens in Europe. However, about an hour ago, during Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister said that European directives prevented us from adopting that system in this country. Why can other European countries get away with it, while, according to the Prime Minister, we cannot?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I do not for one moment accept that it is impossible. There may be a limit on the amount of revenue that can be raised through a vignette system. However, that is a matter of detail; the fact remains that a substantial amount of revenue could be raised from hauliers visiting the UK—this year, about a million trucks will visit this country—who pay not a penny towards the maintenance or construction of British roads. The revenue from their visits could be recycled in order to reduce vehicle excise duty and erode the differential that disadvantages British hauliers.
When our suggestion was put to the Deputy Prime Minister at Prime Minister's questions last week, he turned it down flat. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) asked him:
Will he introduce a Brit disc and a corresponding reduction in vehicle excise duty in the Finance Bill …?
The right hon. Gentleman answered:
No, we will not do that."—[Official Report, 14 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 222.]
It could well be that he thought that we were talking about the poll tax, but it hardly excuses his turning down, from the Dispatch Box, a constructive suggestion that has the support of the British haulage industry.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most peculiar aspects is that, although the Government claim to be concerned about jobs and small businesses, their rejection of the constructive proposals made by the Opposition and the haulage industry shows that, when it comes down to brass tacks, the Government do not care about either of those things? They are putting a vast number of small haulage businesses into bankruptcy, which will cost all the people who work for those businesses their job. Two companies in my own constituency have written to tell me that they are on the verge of bankruptcy as a direct result of the -Government's policy. As for the escalator, the Government do not understand that, when they get to the top of an escalator, they are supposed to get off.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agree with my hon. Friend.
What so annoys the haulage industry is that the entire issue is dressed up as an environmental issue—it is supposedly all about global warming. However, according to the Government's own booklet on climate change, if the escalator proceeds on its present course, the estimated annual carbon saving by 2010 will be between 2 million and 5 million tonnes. That same document enumerates far greater savings to be found in domestic fuel use, business fuel use and even Government fuel use for a fraction of the cost that the Government are loading on to the haulage


industry. In other words, we have here a giant misallocation of resources: for colossal additional expenditure by the haulage industry, a small reduction in carbon emissions is gained; whereas, if a tiny part of that expenditure were applied to domestic heating and controls, the reduction in carbon emissions would be far greater.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: If the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to forgo the saving of 2 million to 5 million tonnes of carbon that might be gained through the fuel duty escalator, which he says should be scrapped, what policies does he suggest would enable us to achieve the same saving, or does he not care about meeting our Kyoto commitments?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: One of the inconsistencies in the Government's position, and a reason why they are not taken seriously in respect of environmental matters, is that they are pulling in two directions by blocking gas-fired electricity generation and encouraging coal use, which puts more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The coal industry digs up carbon that has been underground for millions of years and sends it into the atmosphere; so the Government's energy policies pull in the wrong direction in terms of global warming.

Yvette Cooper: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he would like to close coal-fired power stations, and so close down the coal industry?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No, I am not saying that. I am saying that we should return to the policy of the previous Government, whereby the electricity generating industry made its own contribution to the reduction in carbon emissions. The current Government have blocked that policy, yet they pretend to have a coherent strategy to tackle global warming. Worse still, they are laying the entire burden of that global warming strategy on the British haulage industry, so crushing it. That is the cause of our complaint and that of haulage industry.
We want the Minister to tell us that the Government recognise the seriousness of the problems facing the industry. Will the Government confirm the damage that they are causing in terms of criminality through smuggling, loss of revenue, loss of competitiveness and loss of jobs? Will the Government commission and undertake to publish an independent report into the cost of haulage per mile for each tonne of freight for the various competing means of freight transport? Most important, will the Government at last drop their complacent and self-satisfied attitude and start to give us answers, instead of excuses?

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
believes that everyone, including hauliers, must play their part in reducing emissions of carbon dioxide from transport, and that the road fuel duty escalator first introduced by the last Government acts as an incentive to greater fuel efficiency; deplores the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party for doing one thing in Government and another in Opposition; calls on it to explain which areas of public spending it would cut in order to pay for the abandonment of the

fuel escalator; welcomes this Government's commitment to promoting a more dynamic business sector, in particular the measures taken to help the road haulage industry, including cuts in the corporation tax rates, freezing the rates of vehicle excise duty for most lorries for two years running, doubling the maximum reduction in vehicle excise duty for cleaner lorries, and reducing duty rates on ultra-low sulphur diesel relative to ordinary diesel; notes that the UK haulage industry benefits from the total tax burden on business in the UK being lower than that of other major EU member states, and lower than the average for the EU and the OECD; believes that the environmental measures this Government has introduced will play an important part in encouraging use of more fuel-efficient vehicles, cleaner fuels and greener modes of transport; and welcomes the dialogue that is now taking place between the industry and the Government in the Road Haulage Forum.
This is an important debate about an important and extremely successful United Kingdom industry. Despite a problem of overcapacity, the United Kingdom haulage industry is extremely competitive by international standards and the best UK haulage fleets are better than any others in the world. However, there is enormous variation in performance. On the industry's own figures, the best UK haulage companies are almost twice as fuel efficient as the worst companies. No one disagrees with the fact that there is considerable scope for many British hauliers to reduce their fuel consumption.
The need to become more fuel efficient has been heightened by growing public concerns about the costs—especially the environmental costs—that hauliers impose through the use of their lorries. Inefficiency of the sort that I have described leads to unnecessary pollution and extra congestion. That is particularly true because of the environmental problems associated with diesel usage.
It is right and proper that everyone, including hauliers, should play a part in reducing such emissions. It is equally right that the costs that lorries impose in wear and tear on our roads should be reflected at least partly in the costs that their operators bear, particularly when the newest class of lorry does damage to the roads equivalent to that caused by at least 10,000 cars.
For those reasons, successive Governments have increased the duty on conventional diesel by more than the rate of inflation. The fuel duty escalator was formally introduced by the then Conservative Government in 1993 in an effort to meet the commitments they rightly made at the Rio Earth summit. This Government are continuing the escalator because it will help us to meet the commitments that we made at Kyoto.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I should like to explore the right hon. Gentleman's argument that diesel prices should be increased. It is within his power and that of his Government to stop the French Government continuing a diesel duty rebate, which makes diesel even cheaper for French trucks, by vetoing the regulation that is currently before the Council of Ministers. Will the Chief Secretary undertake to do that, or will he allow diesel to be sold even more cheaply to French drivers so that they can continue to come to this country and take British jobs?

Mr. Milburn: It is odd to hear the hon. Gentleman, of all people, advocating tax harmonisation policies in Europe: I thought he was on the Euro-sceptical wing of the Conservative party. What the French Government decide to do is a matter for them. As far as Kyoto is concerned, I remind the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
He should calm down. There will be many opportunities to get excited in this debate, as I am sure he will demonstrate in his winding-up speech. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about legally binding international obligations that the previous Government entered into in all fairness, as have we. We must all play a part—hauliers included—in meeting those obligations.
I understand the concerns that the haulage industry has expressed about the implications of this approach. The Government openly acknowledge that a balance must be struck between environmental objectives and the needs of industry.

Kali Mountford: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and for providing the answer that I failed to secure from the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), about Rio. Could my right hon. Friend expand on the notion of polluter pays? Outmoded haulage vehicles have an effect not only on our roads but on the health of the population, and particularly children, who breathe in diesel fumes.

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is correct. Until a month ago, polluter pays was a cross-party principle to which all parties subscribed. The then Conservative Government supported that principle when they announced their conclusions to the Rio summit, and we supported that policy in opposition. The Conservatives also supported the conclusions of the Kyoto summit that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister managed to negotiate. The polluter pays principle is right and fair. It makes not only for environmental sense but for economic efficiency.

Mr. Tim Loughton: Will the Chief Secretary explain the conundrum of how the polluter pays or the environment gains as a result of the Government's tax changes, which will have the effect of replacing British lorries belching British fumes on British roads with Belgian, French and German lorries belching their fumes on British roads? There will be no net gain whatsoever for the environment.

Mr. Milburn: I wish that the hon. Gentleman, who has expertise in this area, would consider the facts rather than relying on conjecture. [Interruption.] I say to hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench that it is conjecture. The facts are straightforward. It is a fact that fewer than 1 per cent. of journeys by lorries on our roads are undertaken by foreign firms.

Mr. Loughton: rose—

Mr. Fabricant: rose—

Mr. Paterson: rose—

Mr. Milburn: I shall allow the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) to intervene. He probably wants to apologise.

Mr. Paterson: No, I should like to try to educate Ministers about the environment. The Government's Kyoto target is to reduce carbon emissions by 12.5 per cent, using

the 1990 rate as a base. According to the House of Commons Library, in 1990 this country produced about 159 million tonnes of carbon: power stations produced 54 million tonnes; other sources produced 76 million, and road transport produced 30 million. The Library estimates that 16 per cent. of road transport emissions were from freight traffic, so 5 million tonnes of carbon are emitted by the road haulage industry.
How on earth will the Government halve the emissions by the road haulage industry when if loads are not carried by British trucks, they will be carried by foreign trucks, and when Library figures show that road traffic is increasing year on year?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention was far too long.

Mr. Milburn: The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's lengthy question is that we shall achieve our aim through improved fuel efficiency. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and the haulage industry are working closely in partnership to tackle those issues. There are extremely simple measures that the industry wants to take, and can take, to improve its fuel efficiency, such as improved driver training, less empty running and better logistics management. Those are all straightforward options which my right hon. Friend is now exploring with the industry.
I say to the hon. Member for North Shropshire and the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) that we have established the road haulage forum to allow us to listen to the industry's concerns and, where possible, to meet its representatives. The first meeting of the forum took place earlier this month. It was constructive and the forum agreed to examine as quickly as possible the industry's competitive position, with a view to considering solutions.
Far from the Government ignoring hauliers' views, as the Opposition motion alleges, we are working closely with the industry and the trade unions that represent its workers. That is a sensible approach. Dialogue is certainly preferable to the disruption that a minority of militant hauliers have been visiting on the streets of our major cities in recent weeks. I hope that hon. Members of all parties will condemn such disruption as irresponsible and ultimately self-defeating.

Mr. Fabricant: Is not the Minister aware that while he continues to talk about this issue, businesses are going bankrupt? He says that the question of taking vehicles abroad is conjecture, but is he aware that Fareham council now plans to get all its heavy vehicles licensed in France?

Mr. Milburn: I shall turn in a moment to the allegations about flagging out made by the hon. Gentleman and by his party in the Opposition motion.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Milburn: In a moment. I shall make a little progress first.
I know that industry representatives have rightly been cautious about appearing to sanction any disruption by a minority of militant hauliers. They should be equally


cautious about relying for political support for their cause on the Opposition, whose motion I shall now deal with in detail.
The Conservatives have adopted the worst possible combination of hypocrisy and exaggeration in making their case. First, it is a bit much to hear the right hon. Member for Wells accuse the Government of damaging the haulage industry, because when he was a Treasury Minister, his Government's policy of boom and bust drove 5,000 road haulage companies out of business. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that what industry dreads most is a return to the days of the late 1980s and early 1990s when interest rates and inflation were in double figures, thanks to his Government's policies.
In any case, the figure that the right hon. Gentleman quoted in respect of job losses, and which the Opposition motion repeats, is pure make-believe. Before the Budget, the Opposition were citing job losses of 26,000; now, that figure is 53,000. In all candour, I have to tell Opposition Members that thinking of a figure and then doubling it overnight is hardly the most credible way to win a political argument. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) wants to win a political argument, I am happy to give way to him.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a clear difference between unemployment arising out of the accidental and unforeseen consequences of an interest rate policy that was backed by the then Opposition, and his own quite deliberate policy, given that he began by saying that there was overcapacity in the industry and went on to say that it was his intention to drive fuel-inefficient companies out of business?

Mr. Milburn: I am not sure whether that was an apology for the damage that the previous Government wreaked on the haulage industry, but it certainly should have been. In those days, the Government set interest rate policy directly, and they set interest rates in double figures. I remind the hon. Gentleman that interest rates were in double figures not for one but for four years.
What is ever more striking about the Opposition's position is their pure opportunism. This is from the party which, while in government, introduced the fuel escalator, extolled its virtues and defended its impact. We have of course become used to new U-turns and new posturing by the Opposition almost daily, but today the Opposition have displayed a degree of opportunism that frankly is enough even to make the Liberal party blush.
It is simply astonishing to hear the right hon. Member for Wells now oppose the fuel duty escalator as he was a Treasury Minister in the previous Government who introduced it in the first place. Not only that, but he was one of its foremost exponents. He told the House on 23 January 1995 during the passage of the Finance Bill:
These increases"—
the 5 per cent. real increases—
are also an important part of our strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The fuel duties policy should reduce carbon dioxide emissions by around 2.5 million tonnes of carbon by 2000. This, together with other measures already announced, should enable us to meet our targets of reductions arising from the Rio agreement.

On the same day, he went on to justify the escalator further. I do not know whether he can remember this speech, but he said:
The fact is that 20 per cent. of carbon emissions in the United Kingdom come from road transport, and a large increase in emissions is forecast by the end of the century; so transport must contribute to any strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions."— [Official Report, 23 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 98-103.]
Nothing could be clearer.
I know that the Conservative party is desperately trying to reinvent itself, but I had not realised that that applied to individual members of the party as well as the organisation itself. What on earth are we going to see next? Heaven knows, we might even see the deputy leader of the Conservative party and the Front-Bench spokesperson on health agreeing their policies on privatisation, for example.
It is not as if the Conservatives stopped supporting the idea of environmental taxes the moment they left office. Quite the reverse is true. When this Government took office and announced that we were continuing the escalator policy introduced by the Tories, and, indeed, were raising it from 5 to 6 per cent. in our first Budget, the Leader of the Opposition told the House on 2 July 1997:
We also welcome the Chancellor's continued use of tax for environmental purposes".—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 323.]
So what has changed?

Mr. Loughton: One thing that has certainly changed since 1993 is the abolition of cabotage rules in the European Union last year. That means that any continental vehicles can come to this country, belching out their fumes and taking UK loads. That certainly was not the case in 1993. I repeat the question that I asked earlier: how is that an environmental gain? It is simply substituting one country's pollution for that of another on our roads. The Minister must admit that.

Mr. Milburn: I cannot admit that, and there is no evidence for it. I shall deal with those matters in a moment.

Mr. Welsh: Although the Minister is right to attack the Conservatives, how can the Government justify the fact that Scotland, which is Europe's largest oil producer, has the highest fuel taxes and the highest fuel costs in Europe? Does the Minister realise that by raising fuel costs, he automatically lowers the living standard of every Scottish family and attacks the competitiveness of every Scottish business?

Mr. Milburn: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was a member of the party that wanted to increase taxes for the people of Scotland.

Mr. Welsh: How can the Minister justify the fact that Scotland is Europe's major oil producer, yet it now has the highest fuel taxes and costs in Europe? That should not be the case. The Scottish National party wants to make our industry more competitive. The Government's policy is attacking the competitiveness of our industry and the living standards of the Scottish people.

Mr. Milburn: That sounds to me like a further increase in income tax if, heaven help us, the Scottish people were landed with an SNP Government in their Parliament.

Mr. Bill Rammell: I return to the disingenuousness of the Conservative party. Does my


right hon. Friend recall, when that debate was going on, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), saying that signing up to the aims of the Rio summit and then denying the means to achieve them through the fuel escalator comes dangerously close to hypocrisy? Does that not belie the hot air coming from the Conservative party today?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) posed a real dilemma to the Conservative party and the House. This is not straightforward. There are dilemmas and difficult issues to balance and get right, but it is important that hon. Members on both sides of the House veer away from a hypocritical position. I fear that some hon. Members are in danger of not doing that.
The Conservatives claim that the entire problem is down to the extra 1 per cent. that the Government—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that any hon. Member would be hypocritical in his or her behaviour.

Mr. Milburn: Of course not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely repeating the words of the then Chancellor the Exchequer, who warned about the dangers of sailing close to hypocrisy on some of these matters.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may accuse a political party of being hypocritical, but certainly no hon. Member.

Mr. Milburn: That is absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Conservatives claim that the entire problem is down to the extra 1 per cent. that the Government have added to the escalator. Talk about torturing the statistics until they confess. The truth is that the price of a litre of diesel has risen by 7p since the general election. Under the previous Government, it rose by 26p.
I remind the right hon. Member for Wells that three duty rises under the Conservatives added 10 per cent., 10 per cent. and 13 per cent. to the price of diesel. The party that introduced the escalator and is responsible for its having the greatest impact on fuel prices now opposes it. There is only one way of describing that: it is naked opportunism.
However, that is not all. The Tory party wants to have its cake and eat it. It professes to support a cleaner environment. As I understand it, the environment is one of the issues that today's Conservative party is most keen to discuss around its kitchen table. Indeed, to be fair to the Opposition, they supported the Government when we made our legally binding commitments at Kyoto, and I am grateful to them for that. Now their abandonment of the escalator leaves them professing support for our environmental objectives, but opposing the policies necessary to bring them about. Presumably, they believe that improvements in the environment will simply look after themselves.
I remind Conservative Members of what the previous Conservative Chancellor said to the House about the dilemma:
Any critic of the Government's tax plans who claims also to support the international agreement to curb carbon dioxide emissions will be sailing dangerously near to hypocrisy."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 939.]
This Government believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was right—just as his party used to believe that it was right—to use the taxation system to achieve our environmental objectives. All that has changed is the Conservative party's attitude and its opportunism in latching on to an issue that it believes will bring it some desperately needed popularity.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Milburn: Yes, but this will be the last time.

Mrs. Laing: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has entirely missed the point of what Conservative Members are saying? He is right, of course, in the statistics that he has just given on the rise in the price of fuel as a result of the escalator, but the point is that the escalator has reached a threshold at which it is no longer working. Since it is no longer working and of benefit to the environment, as it was when first introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), it should now be stopped.

Mr. Milburn: No, that is not the position. I shall come to the figures in a just moment or two.
The Conservative party's credibility will be damaged still further by the admission of the hon. Lady and, indeed, of the right hon. Member for Wells that its policy is now to abandon the escalator. If that is so, the right hon. Gentleman had better start explaining to the British people how the Tories will plug the £1.5 billion annual black hole that that will leave in their annual spending. Which taxes will have to rise to compensate for that loss of revenue? Which services will be cut?
Just last night, we heard the deputy leader of the Conservative party claim that it was the party that now supported public services and wanted to invest in them. Less than 24 hours later, his position has been totally undermined by his Treasury Front-Bench team, which would deny schools and hospitals the investment that they need.

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Milburn: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman; I have already done so. He is to make a speech, heaven help us, before too long, and will have plenty of opportunities to make his points then.
The Opposition's credibility is not enhanced either by the ludicrous claim that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and the right hon. Member for Wells are making about the impact of the fuel duty escalator on flagging out. I said that I would come to this point, and I now do so. The right hon. Gentleman makes much of the cost of diesel in the UK compared with the price in Europe. There is no denying that it is higher, although it


is interesting—some would say strange—to hear the Conservative party acting as an apparent advocate for tax harmonisation in Europe.

Mr. Paterson: We advocate lower taxation.

Mr. Milburn: That is not the position, as I understand it.
More importantly, the right hon. Member for Wells failed to mention the other costs that haulage companies face as part and parcel of doing business. The cost of fuel is of course important, but so are labour costs, other social costs and the taxes that companies face wherever they operate. Once all those factors are taken into account, it is clear that moving out of the UK would be an expensive business for haulage firms. That is so because the total tax burden on businesses in the UK is lower than that in other major European countries and, indeed, lower than the average in both the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Union.
For example, a typical firm with a fleet of 50 articulated lorries would face higher business costs of nearly £400,000 a year if it relocated from the UK to France, £600,000 if it relocated to Holland, and more than £800,000 if it relocated to Belgium.

Mr. Loughton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Milburn: I have given way twice to the hon. Gentleman; he should not be greedy.
There are good reasons why Britain is the best and most cost-effective place for haulage companies to locate. With a handful of exceptions, there are no road tolls in the UK. In France, an operator can expect to pay road tolls of about £7,800 for every vehicle every year. On top of that, corporation tax is 50 per cent. higher in France, and labour taxes 100 per cent. higher.
Some overseas companies—

Mr. Loughton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Milburn: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman any more.
Some overseas companies have already recognised those facts and have moved into the United Kingdom. Despite the irresponsible claims made by Conservative Members, Britain is the best place for hauliers, but the idea that Britain's roads are about to be overrun by what the hon. Member for North Shropshire last week called dirty foreign trucks would be laughable if it were not so serious: fewer than 1 per cent. of lorry journeys are undertaken by foreign-based companies.
Despite that, the Opposition advocate what they call a Brit disc—which, more properly, the industry calls a Euro vignette—as a means of taxing foreign lorries for operating on British roads and passing the benefits on to domestic hauliers either through reduced fuel prices or reduced vehicle excise duty. That, as I understand it, is the hon. Gentleman's policy.
However, even the initiator of that proposal—the Road Haulage Association—estimates that it could not raise much more than £10 million a year, which would achieve a maximum reduction in fuel prices of only 0.01 of a

penny off a litre of diesel. In reality, the reduction would be much less than that because of the European directive, to which the Conservative party signed up when it was in government, that limits the scope of the Euro vignette.
The vignette would need to apply to United Kingdom and foreign hauliers alike, and administering and enforcing it could cost nearly as much as it would raise in revenue, so it is far from being a panacea. None the less, because the industry has made the proposal, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has agreed that we will examine its feasibility. That is precisely what we are doing.

Mr. Jenkin: Hear, hear.

Mr. Milburn: That is not a surprise, although it may be to the hon. Gentleman. We made that announcement on 8 April.
The best prospects for the industry lie in the measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced in his recent Budget. The most fuel-efficient, road-friendly vehicles, and the companies that operate them, stand to gain from the package that he announced, which is designed to encourage the use of cleaner fuels and vehicles and to discourage unnecessary journeys.
We cut the duty on cleaner, ultra-low sulphur diesel relative to ordinary diesel. We made similar cuts in previous Budgets, and they have been extremely successful. By the end of the year, nearly all diesel sold is expected to be the cleaner type. The success of the policy will cost the Exchequer £400 million, which gives the lie to claims that our approach on fuel duties is driven by financial rather than environmental considerations.
We also cut road fuel gases by a quarter, further increasing the duty differential with conventional fuels. We froze vehicle excise duty for—

Mr. Loughton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Milburn: I am not giving way any more.
We froze vehicle excise duty for 98 per cent. of lorries. We doubled the reduction in VED for lorries meeting low-emission standards. We cut the red tape surrounding switching lorry weights to qualify for lower VED, which is exactly what the industry had been calling for throughout two decades.

Mr. Jenkin: Not enough.

Mr. Milburn: If that is not enough, we cut corporation tax as well. The new rates of 30p, 20p and lop are the lowest in the history of United Kingdom company taxes. They are the lowest of any major country and, indeed, the lowest of any major industrialised nation in the world. Haulage companies will be among the 270,000 firms in particular that will be benefit from the new lop starting rate of corporation tax, which has been so warmly welcomed by the business community.
The Government fully recognise the contribution of the road haulage industry to the economy. The best way to help the industry is to ensure stable economic growth and long-term investment in business; the worst is to adopt the position of Her Majesty's Opposition. The Government will not be unpicking either the Budget or the


Finance Bill. The policy of the Opposition is unprincipled, hypocritical and irresponsible. It speaks volumes about today's Conservative party and deserves to be rejected by the House. I urge my hon. Friends to do just that.

Mr. Tony Baldry: The Chief Secretary's special adviser has clearly drafted him a robust speech for this Opposition day debate, which he delivered with characteristic panache. It may well cheer Labour Back Benchers, but the House should consider what is happening in the real world out there. No one supports the disruption of our highways by road hauliers, but Ministers on the Treasury Bench and Government supporters should consider why hauliers are giving up a day's pay and a day's work to demonstrate. They are not doing so because of some fictional grievance.
The Government seem to think that this is a great fantasy, but out there in the real world, the road haulage industry is expressing its concerns and complaining. I cannot believe that representatives of the road haulage industry in their hundreds have been writing only to Conservative Members of Parliament to express their concerns about the predicament in which they find themselves. Perhaps they are writing to us because we are the only Members of Parliament prepared to listen to them.
The Minister of Transport tells the House that he has set up a road haulage forum, but his colleague the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has just told us that nothing in the Budget will be reconsidered—I think he used the word "unpicked". What on earth is the point of consultation with the road haulage forum if the Government are not prepared to change one iota of their policies? It is little wonder that road hauliers are not prepared to write or talk to Labour Members of Parliament, because they know that they will get no mileage out of them.

Ms Rosie Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is in favour of the action that road hauliers are taking to disrupt ordinary people's lives, or whether he is in favour of the Government's way of proceeding, which is to sit down with the industry and talk about a way forward to resolve this problem?

Mr. Baldry: I thought that I had made it clear to the House—if I did not, it was my fault—that I do not think anyone would support the disruption of highways and commerce by road hauliers blocking the streets. Hansard will show that I made that point clear.
Road hauliers would not give up a day's pay and take such action unless they felt that they had a real grievance. The hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) and her colleagues should consider why they are demonstrating and behaving in that way. They are doing so because they consider that they are being driven out of business by the Government's policies. They are also concerned that the Government are unwilling to listen to them. The Government say that they have set up a road haulage forum, and that is fine. However, Ministers have said today that they will hold the forum, but that they are not going to change their policies. What on earth is the

point of the road haulage industry talking to the Government if they are not prepared to change their policies?

Mr. Paterson: On the Government's willingness to listen to the industry, I had an Adjournment debate on this subject on 11 November 1998, and I asked the Economic Secretary whether she would allow me to take a delegation from the industry to meet her. The answer was no, although she graciously allowed me to go along for a half an hour on my own, and at a later date I was allowed to take one representative of the industry to meet some civil servants. It is only very recently, following the major demonstrations and the rally at the House of Commons, that the Government have listened and have set up the forum. They will still not allow into the forum delegates from trucking companies who want to attend.

Mr. Baldry: I do not know what the practice is at the moment, but when I was a Minister, there was an implied constitutional convention that Ministers would always see parliamentary colleagues, irrespective of party, if they wanted to take a delegation to meet them. In fairness, I must add that when the Chief Secretary was at the Department of Health, he always saw delegations. Nevertheless, until very recently, Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions seemed to be unwilling to listen to what the industry was saying. That must be why representatives of the industry apparently write only to Conservative Members of Parliament. If they were also writing to Labour MPs, no doubt some of those MPs would recognise that a problem exists.

Dr. Reid: As the hon. Gentleman has recently discovered the real world, let me share another bit of it with him.
Since becoming a Minister, I—in common with my officials—have been talking to both the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association. Only two months ago, we issued a major document on sustainable distribution. Both associations were present at the press conference and the issuing of the press release, and we were associated with their network. The road haulage forum includes the two associations, and I am in the process of writing to them to invite not only their full-time officials, but their elected presidents to attend. What we cannot do is promise to invite everyone who says that if we do not invite them they will blockade the streets of Britain. We are acting in a sensible, reasonable fashion: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by that.

Mr. Baldry: The right hon. Gentleman says that he is talking to road hauliers. What he is not doing is listening. Ministers are clearly spending all their time talking at the industry, rather than listening to its concerns.
Last Tuesday, during transport questions, the Minister seemed to find it amazing that anyone should suggest that road haulage industry representatives should want to flag out from the United Kingdom to other countries. Only this month, the Road Haulage Association reportedly said:
Hauliers are voting with their feet against the Government's swingeing increases in fuel and vehicle excise duty.
A staggering 2,000 firms—20 per cent. of the Association's membership—have asked for information packs on the 'registration plates of convenience' scheme under which they can register trucks abroad.


This is clear evidence, if it was needed, that the industry isn't just prepared to protest. It will hit the Government where it hurts most … in its pocket".

Ms Claire Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baldry: Not now. I want to finish what I am saying.
It would be helpful if the Minister would do me the courtesy of listening, as I want to refer to an answer that he gave me at Question Time. When I suggested that, if everything was as hunky-dory as the Government were suggesting, it was extraordinary that so many firms should contemplate moving elsewhere in Europe, the Minister said that I had got it completely wrong, and that if I looked at the KPMG report, I would see that there was no problem. He said:
The fact is that all the independent assessments, including the most recent one by KPMG, show that, next to Austria's, our road haulage industry is the most competitive in Europe."—[Official Report, 13 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 9.]
The House could reasonably have inferred from that answer that the Government had commissioned independent research providing a comparison between road haulage costs in the United Kingdom and road haulage costs elsewhere in Europe, but, as we have now discovered, that is not the case.

Ms Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baldry: When I have finished making this point, I will gladly give way.
When we look at the KPMG report, we discover that nothing of the kind happened. The report concerns a number of different sectors, and a comparatively small part is devoted to road haulage. It states that the only reason for low freight costs in the United Kingdom is "compact market areas", meaning shorter distances. It is nothing to do with the cost per mile of running a UK-registered truck on UK fuel in competition with other European Union hauliers on the same roads. Therefore—whatever the exchange, and whoever from KPMG appeared at the Minister's press conference—to rely on such a report to suggest that there is no problem is, at best, disingenuous.

Ms Ward: The hon. Gentleman said that some hauliers are requesting information on how to register their trucks abroad. However, he did not say that, when they receive that information, they realise that, when all the costs are taken into account, the United Kingdom is comparatively much more competitive than other European countries. Hauliers may be requesting that information, but, once they receive it, they realise how well they are doing.

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Lady and some of her colleagues have a hard learning curve to surmount—we have all been there. It is fine coming into the Chamber, picking up a Whips' brief from the Government Whips Office and reading it out, but, when road hauliers visit the hon. Lady's surgery and confront her with real facts, it will be very difficult to justify the pretence that there is no real problem and that it is all a figment of the hauliers' imagination.

Several hon: . Members rose—

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: The hon. Gentleman mentions road hauliers coming to our surgeries.

However, if they do, they will be talking not only about what the current Government have done, but about what happened to them in the 18 years of the previous Government. When they do speak to us, they will take into account all that has happened. If the hon. Gentleman genuinely means what he is saying, surely he will take some responsibility for what the previous Government did in 18 years to the industry.

Mr. Baldry: In the 18 years of the previous, Conservative Government, I cannot recall any occasion on which the road haulage industry felt it necessary to take to the streets, to demonstrate, to blockade and to voice its concerns. I think that the industry always felt that, in the Conservative Government, it had a Government who listened and had its interests at heart.
I represent the heart of England—

Mr. Loughton: Metaphorically and physically.

Mr. Baldry: Yes, both.
Dun and Bradstreet's most recent profitability survey shows that Banbury has the highest proportion of profit-making businesses in Britain. I am glad to say that I represent one of the most successful areas of the United Kingdom. Why did Dun and Bradstreet reach that conclusion? It states:
The M40 has helped to make north Oxfordshire one of the fastest growing economic areas in the South East",
and that Banbury
has taken on a new lease of life since the arrival of the M40".
It continues:
Banbury is strategically situated about one mile off the motorway almost half-way between London and Birmingham.
Hundreds and thousands of new jobs have come to north Oxfordshire because of motorway links. The goods and services manufactured and provided in north Oxfordshire are taken away and delivered mostly by road haulage. Therefore, Opposition Members' concerns about the road haulage industry's complaints are not simply about the road haulage industry, but about the overall competitiveness of United Kingdom industry. If the road haulage industry is facing substantially increased costs, it will pass those costs on to United Kingdom industry generally, and primarily to United Kingdom manufacturing industry—an economic sector about which I should have thought that the Government should be concerned.

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is making an extremely important point—that the debate goes much wider than only the road haulage sector. It is important to understand that only a certain part of the industry—businesses that already operate internationally—may flag out, and that much of the industry cannot do so. That part of the industry will have either to pass on its costs to its customers or to go out of business. Therefore, directly as a result of the Budget, the transport costs of businesses such as Cortaulds have risen by 11 per cent.—and the Government have the nerve to lecture us on competitiveness.

Mr. Baldry: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no need to argue about the facts. Following last month's Budget, a litre of diesel costs 71.2p, compared with an


average of 42p in the rest of Europe. In Germany, it costs just under 40p. More than 85 per cent. of the UK retail price is taken as tax. Under Labour, British lorries are subject to the highest vehicle excise duty in Europe. The Budget increased vehicle excise duty on 38-tonne trucks to £5,750 a year. The average in the rest of the European Union is £928, while in France, it is just £486.
The Government may be unwilling to listen to the truckers and the road haulage industry, but I hope that they will be prepared to listen to established organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, which collectively have advised the Government that 53,000 British jobs are at risk because of the high taxes facing the haulage industry. In my experience in government, organisations such as the CBI and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce did not give us fantasy figures or figures that they had not researched. When such organisations express real concerns, it is sensible for the Government to listen to them. British truckers face the highest road tax and the highest diesel prices in Europe. British truckers trying to compete abroad are hit by foreign road taxes, while continental truckers with lower rates of tax can drive free of charge on British roads, using cheap foreign fuel.

Ms Margaret Moran: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when road haulage companies assess the competitive advantages of locating in this country or elsewhere, they will take into account the total comparative tax burden, which includes the lowest rates of corporation tax that this country has ever had and lower labour taxes? In comparison with the Netherlands, there is a £800,000 tax advantage to locating in this country. Will they not also take into account the costs of pollution, of which they create their share? Those costs are estimated at about £18 million a year. Will not the average haulage operator in this country take all those considerations into account—and to our benefit?

Mr. Baldry: If all those facts were correct, one would expect European truck companies to be flagging in to the United Kingdom and moving here. I suggest that the hon. Lady gets in touch with her local chamber of commerce to ask why the Association of British Chambers of Commerce is telling the Government that 53,000 jobs are at risk. The hon. Lady smiles, but I would not smile at the suggestion of 53,000 jobs being at risk. The figure has come not from some off-the-wall academic think tank or an industry pressure group, but from the CBI, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and others, who have expressed their deep concerns to the Government.

Mr. Loughton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is pretty rich for the Government, who have finally woken up to the additional costs of integration with Europe, to use that as their argument here? They have done a great deal to give up our opt-outs from the extra social chapter charges that the previous Government were able to avoid. They are seeking to bring those extra costs to this country.

Mr. Baldry: Since coming to office, the Government have taken many decisions that have made the position of UK industry far less competitive.
The UK road haulage industry is expressing real concerns about the position that it is being put in. They are not imaginary concerns. The Government have made it clear this afternoon that they are not prepared to take any action to help the British road haulage industry. The simple test of that is whether, in a month or two, the Chief Secretary or the Minister of Transport report to the House what positive actions they have taken or are taking as a consequence of their discussions with the road haulage forum. I am prepared to bet good money with anyone who, wants to take a bet this afternoon that nothing will emerge from those discussions, because the Government are committed to the strategy that they have adopted in this year's Budget.

Mr. Milburn: Repeating allegations does not make them any more correct. This is the third or fourth time that the hon. Gentleman has repeated his allegation that we are not listening to the road hauliers. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary have had their first meeting with the road hauliers. I repeat the undertaking that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has already given to examine the industry's proposals for a Euro vignette. We go into that with our eyes open. It is not the panacea that Conservative Front-Bench Members think.

Mr. Baldry: When the Chief Secretary looks at Hansard, as I am sure that he will do shortly, he will see that in almost the last sentence of his speech, he said that the Government were not prepared to unpick the Budget or the Finance Bill. If he has not yet realised that the road haulage industry is complaining about the provisions in this year's Budget, he has clearly not been listening to the industry.

Ms Moran: rose—

Mrs. Diana Organ: rose—

Mr. Baldry: I shall not give way, because there are others who want to speak.
We are not putting forward the Brit disc as a panacea. As I am sure that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will explain in greater detail, the proposal is a first step to try to redress the situation. If the Government do not start listening to the UK road haulage industry—

Mrs. Organ: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baldry: No. I have made it clear that I shall not give way. I am sure that the hon. Lady is one of those who would like to have a chance to speak.
If the Government do not start listening to the UK road haulage industry, not only the road haulage industry, but the whole of UK industry will suffer. That will be highly detrimental to the competitiveness of the UK economy. I hope that the Government will start to listen, sooner rather than later, to what UK industry and business is telling them. Repeating the Treasury mantra will not make Government policies any more palatable or correct.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: I have listened with interest to the debate. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has adequately rebuffed all the


Opposition arguments, so I hope that I do not need to repeat many of the points. The Opposition seem to be having a problem taking in some of the realities of the outside world. It is interesting that there are not many Conservative Members in the Chamber this afternoon. I know that Lady Thatcher gave an important speech yesterday evening and it was a late night for many of them, but perhaps they should have the courtesy to come into the Chamber on an Opposition day.
Looking at the subject objectively, the Government have listened to the road haulage industry. Like most hon. Members, I have haulage companies in my constituency. It is important to take into account their costs and the opportunities that they have to trade across the country and across Europe. I am pleased to see the constructive way in which the Government have addressed the problem. Rather than hyping up the militancy and the protests that have disrupted the country—as the Conservatives have done—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has set up an industry forum to listen and consult with employees, union representatives and business leaders in the road haulage industry. The Government are trying to listen and to take on board some of their comments.

Mr. Swayne: I have been listening to the concerns of the road haulage industry. I also listened to the Chief Secretary. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the opening five minutes of the Chief Secretary's speech, when he told us, first, that there was overcapacity in the industry and, secondly, that it was fuel inefficient? The conclusion that we draw from that is that Government policy is designed to cause bankruptcy and fallout within the industry. One might even call it a price worth paying.

Mr. Leslie: It is funny that the hon. Gentleman should quote that. I recall that it was said by Lord Lamont, a former Conservative Chancellor, about unemployment. It is a shame that the Opposition stick by that comment.
In my view, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary got it absolutely right. Although the road haulage industry faces various difficulties, we have to consider the wider world and the environmental issues that we must address. The Opposition seem to ignore the fact that we face a worldwide environmental catastrophe, with global warming threatening the livelihoods of millions of people. We have only to see the appalling pictures from Bangladesh and elsewhere in the world, where weather conditions have worsened significantly—probably due in part to carbon dioxide and other emissions since the industrial revolution. It is incumbent on us, as the responsible party of government, to consider the issues and introduce policies that will go some way to honouring our share of the commitment to rectifying the environmental problems that we face.
It is important to point out that the fuel duty escalator, which was introduced by the Conservative Government, was designed in part to discourage the consumption of hydrocarbon oil fuels that produce carbon dioxide and other emissions.
The shadow Chief Secretary said that it did not matter that a saving of 2 million to 5 million tonnes of carbon would be lost as a result of his proposed policy of scrapping the fuel duty escalator. He described that

significant reduction as irrelevant. We need to recognise the importance of meeting our commitments at Rio and Kyoto.

Mr. Loughton: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the report by the Automobile Association that calculates that the entire extra cost on the motorist imposed by the Budget was designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by no more than 1 per cent., and that exactly the same reduction could be achieved at much less expense by issuing every person in the country two energy-efficient light bulbs?

Mr. Leslie: I have not seen that report so I will not comment on it. However, I read another report that said that continuing with the fuel duty escalator could produce a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from transport of between 5 and 12 per cent. by 2010. That is a significant figure, so it is worth keeping our eye on the ball.
When the Opposition were asked how they would substitute for the saving of 2 million to 5 million tonnes of carbon gained through the fuel duty escalator, they revealed their true colours. They wanted to cut back on the coal industry and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by returning to the policies that they pursued in government.
Millions of people were sickened by the previous Government's disregard for coal miners. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who intervened earlier, will have many constituents who are worried by the threat that a Conservative Government will be re-elected and shift the burden from the road haulage industry back to the coal industry. That would certainly not be a solution.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Does my hon. Friend agree that there must be a dialogue on climate change so that the Government and industry work together to help improve the environment? That is why the forum is important; it provides the ability to set environmental targets and discuss their effect on industry. Is that not the proper way forward, instead of the militant action that the Opposition have supported?

Mr. Leslie: As usual, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. I hope that the industry forum will provide a way forward through partnership instead of the combative approach of the Opposition.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He spoke about the interests and views of constituents. Perhaps he can tell the House where in his election address he informed the good people of Shipley that he would be voting to increase taxes and regulation on Britain's road hauliers at a time when cabotage in the European Union means that low-tax, high-polluting foreign lorries can travel scot free on Britain's roads?

Mr. Leslie: I am not sure that it is scot free. As I understand it, the changes in the cabotage rules will account for only 0.04 per cent.—

Mr. Jenkin: That was in 1995.

Mr. Leslie: I am not sure whether it is any more significant in recent years. In any case, in my election manifesto I placed great emphasis on the environmental


benefits that we wanted to achieve in office and the importance of being responsible in government and not simply making a promise one year and changing it the next, as the Conservatives did when they introduced the fuel escalator and then washed their hands of it. One can imagine what the country must think of the desperate state of the Conservative party today, scratching around for issues and spending two days of vital parliamentary time discussing this one. By and large, people understand and accept the need for the measures.

Ms Moran: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's view that we should return to their former policies is not only environmentally unsound, but is economic insanity as under the previous Government the country faced some £30 million net per annum in pollution and congestion costs?

Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend is correct. It is clear that the Conservatives never really intended to solve the problem of congestion or comprehensively deal with the transport crisis that was precipitated by their policies.
As I have mentioned road haulage firms in my constituency, perhaps I should say at this point that I have received more positive comments from road hauliers about the Bingley relief road which is going ahead thanks to my right hon. Friend the Minister. That policy will produce great benefit to industry in the Aire valley area. I may return to that point later. It is also worth mentioning that the Government are taking measures to encourage fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly trucks and lorries. For example, the vehicle excise duty concession has now doubled to £1,000. I hope that that measure, coupled with the increasing differential between the price of ordinary diesel and ultra-low-sulphur diesel, will help to clean up the environment and reduce carbon dioxide emissions, nitrogen dioxide emissions and particulates, which are seriously damaging the atmosphere and the health of all our constituents.
On competitiveness, I find it amazing that Conservative Members can single out one issue without looking at the context of the costs to the industry. We have heard about labour taxes in the rest of the EU, and that we have a relatively competitive position in this country. It is also worth emphasising the corporation tax reductions made by the Government, which will bring great benefit to road hauliers and many other businesses across the country. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) said that his constituency had the largest number of profitable firms in the country, and I imagine that they will be benefiting from the Government's corporation tax reductions.
It is worth repeating the point that road hauliers must pay tolls on the continent. There are few tolls in this country; the Isle of Skye and the Humber are two examples. In France, the owner of a typical truck will have to pay £7,800 in an average year. Those costs must be taken into account and, in my judgment, there is still a great deal of competitiveness for the road haulage industry in this country.
The Opposition have made great play of the fuel duty escalator, and, no doubt, they will want to come back to that matter during discussions on the Finance Bill. However, I cannot see the logic of their position. The fuel

duty escalator has significant principles behind it that need reiterating. It not only has environmental benefits, but spells out clearly to the country the Government's plans over the longer period; rather than doing what the Conservatives would do, which would be to chop and change their tax plans in response to the political expedient of the day. At least this Government have continued what the previous Conservative Government were going to do, and have said that the escalator will continue.
Several references have been made during the debate to remarks by previous Chancellors. One that has not been mentioned so far is a comment by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) who, when he increased the rate of the escalator to 5 per cent., said in his Budget statement:
It is not good policy in these environmentally conscious days to keep road fuel costs so much cheaper than they used to be."— [Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 938.]
At the time, at least, he recognised the environmental benefits of tackling some of these serious issues.

Mr. Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made the decision to impose at 5 per cent. but opposes the increase to 6 per cent., and that there is no inconsistency? How does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that the current Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), at that time opposed the introduction of the levy at 5 per cent., but vigorously supports the imposition of the levy at 6 per cent?

Mr. Leslie: If the hon. Gentleman cannot see an inconsistency between someone supporting the escalator at 5 per cent. but finding it appalling at 6 per cent., I am worried about his health.
Opposition Members must address some of the consequences of their actions. Although raising money is not an overriding objective, the fuel duty escalator brings significant resources into the Exchequer; resources that can be used for vital public services such as health, education and transport.
These are not small amounts of money: according to the Red Book, there will be £1.5 billion of revenue in 1999–2000; £2.9 billion in 2000–01; and £4.2 billion by 2001–02. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was asked how he would plug that gap, which taxes he would raise and which services he would cut—or whether he would add the amount to the national debt. He failed to answer the question.

Mr. Loughton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it has been estimated that, already, £400 million has been lost in excise duties that are now going to the continent as a result of lorry drivers filling up their tanks there? That amount will increase enormously, and the money will be lost anyway.

Mr. Leslie: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures from.

Mr. Loughton: From the lorry drivers.

Mr. Leslie: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman got that information while driving around in the cab of a lorry, but when he presents me with some objective analysis, I might take it seriously.
Perhaps I was misrepresenting the views of the right hon. Member for Wells when I said that he gave no suggestion of where the money would come from. I recall his saying during the debate that he wanted to cut welfare spending to achieve those amounts of money; that is, up to £4.2 billion in 2001-02. Cutting welfare is now the policy of the Conservative party. Pensions, child benefit and disability benefits are all to be slashed by the Conservatives because they want to reduce the fuel duty escalator.
I wonder whether the constituents of Conservative Members—especially their poorest constituents—are fully aware of the risk that would be posed to their financial well-being should the Conservatives ever be re-elected. What an unfortunate day that would be.
The hypocrisy of the Conservative party has been evident throughout the debate, and a strong whiff of feigned outrage and false indignation is emanating from the Opposition Benches. Opposition Members must reconsider their desperately opportunistic stance on so many of these issues, especially when they introduced the road fuel duty escalator in the first place.
As bedtime reading recently, I looked through some of the amendments tabled to the 1997 and 1998 Finance Bills by the Conservative party—as one does. It was rather soporific. In debates on the 1997 Finance Bill—after the general election—the Conservatives proposed a 7.2 per cent. increase in the duties on diesel and all hydrocarbon oil fuels. In 1998, they proposed a 6.4 per cent increase in those duties. That is interesting, given that the expressed policy of the Conservative party is to get rid of the road fuel duty escalator.
I should like to know—the House deserves an answer—whether the Conservative party will stick with the commitments it made during the last few Finance Bills. Will the Conservatives go back to the 5 per cent. escalator? Will they propose a 5 per cent. change, a 1 per cent. change, or do they propose to cut the duty?

Mr. Jenkin: We want to stop the escalator.

Mr. Leslie: I recognise that, but will the Conservatives commit themselves to freezing the duty on hydrocarbon oils, or do they propose to cut those duties? That is what we need to know. I look forward with relish to the amendments that the Conservatives table next week to the Finance Bill. They will be well worth waiting for.
It has been a pleasure to speak in this debate, although—as I said—I feel that there was little to add to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who showed up the hogwash and humbug uttered by Conservative Members.

Mr. Norman Baker: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate, and I am grateful that the Conservatives have chosen this subject.
There are genuine concerns in the road haulage industry about the present situation, which the Government have acknowledged this afternoon that they recognise. Hon. Members may disagree about the action that has been taken, but it does not help to name-call or to suggest that people are not interested in the industry when, clearly, they are.
The Conservatives have found an issue at last, after months of searching—taxation of the road haulage industry. However, they have not helped their case or the road hauliers by over-egging the pudding. The motion refers to the Government's
utter failure to acknowledge the crisis in the UK road haulage industry.
It talks about 53,000 jobs being lost and says that the Government should
end its complacency and refusal to listen to the road haulage industry".
Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members may feel that the Government should do more, but it does not help to exaggerate beyond belief the Government's response to the issue. Whether they are taking the right decisions is another matter, but they are listening to the road haulage industry. A forum has been established and, this afternoon, the Government have acknowledged some problems. I hope that we will now see some positive action from the Government. Let us have a sensible debate instead of the point scoring that we have heard so far.

Mr. John Hayes: Typically, the hon. Gentleman is being generous to the Government, but would it not have been more encouraging had the Government established the consultative process before the crisis? It is a little rich for the Government to say that they will discuss with the road haulage industry what should be done about fuel prices, because that is too late in the day and as a reaction to the understandable outrage that the industry has felt since the Budget.

Mr. Baker: The road haulage industry has been very articulate in making its case in the past few months and has caused all the political parties to consider the issue in more depth than had been the case previously. We should go forward from that point. As I have mentioned, the Conservative motion talks about the loss of 53,000 jobs. I see no evidence for that and I hope that when the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) winds up he will give us some evidence, because it is worrying for the industry and needs to be justified.

Mr. Jenkin: The Centre for Economic and Business Research conducted an investigation into the continuation of the Government's policies and it forecasts job losses of that magnitude from its economic modelling.

Dr. Reid: It is sponsored by the Road Haulage Association.

Mr. Jenkin: It is run by a former CBI economist. The Labour party is fond of listening to the CBI and it is a respectable forecast. The Government should commission an independent assessment of the competitive position of road haulage in the UK and then we could have a proper debate, but the Government will not do it.

Mr. Baker: I agree that we now need an independent assessment of the situation. We need it even more after this afternoon, because the opposing side have produced "facts" that are incompatible with each other and which do not stack up. We need to find out whether the road haulage industry in this country is competitive.


The Government have told us that the KPMG report and others demonstrate the industry's competitiveness, but the Conservatives claim that it is wholly uncompetitive or becoming so, because of the Government's measures. Those are conflicting positions and we need to discover the facts.

Mr. Jenkin: Can the hon. Gentleman not make up his own mind?

Mr. Baker: No, we need the facts. It appears that Conservative Members wish to make up their minds before they have the facts: we would rather wait for the facts.

Dr. Reid: What the hon. Gentleman and the Conservatives have asked for is precisely what we are doing in the haulage forum. Much hot air is produced on this subject, but we have agreed with the haulage forum that we will work jointly with the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association to discover the areas on which we can agree. If necessary, we will take independent advice so that we can build up a picture that will show whether the industry is—as we think—highly competitive internationally. That does not mean that there are not problems with sectors of the industry.

Mr. Baker: I am grateful for the assurance that there will be an independent element to the Government's talks with the road haulage industry.

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman did not say that.

Mr. Baker: Yes, he did. It is important that the facts are independently verified so that when we next have a debate on the issue we can proceed on the basis of facts that we can all agree on and dispute the interpretation of the facts, rather than the facts themselves.
I do not know whether there is a loss to the Exchequer, and if so how much, from hauliers going abroad to fill up. The Government say that that is not happening, and the Conservatives say that it is. I am not sure that it would make economic sense to go abroad, because one must also take account of the time involved and the fare on the ferry. However, in my constituency some drivers travel a long way to avoid paying a 20p car park ticket and waste far more in petrol. It is not necessarily a question of logic as to whether people go abroad. However, we need to find out whether that is happening and quantify the loss to the Exchequer if there is one.
It is clear from the debate so far that two black holes have opened up in the Conservatives' policy, and they need to be filled by the hon. Member for North Essex when he sums up. The first is the loss of income to the Treasury that will follow the abandonment of the escalator. If the Conservatives wish to pursue that policy, they must recognise that £1.5 billion a year, or more, would be lost to the Treasury. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) admitted that it would come from welfare. Many people depend on welfare. They have no alternative income and would be very badly hit by cuts. To raise that possibility so cavalierly was not helpful, and it is important for the Conservatives to clarify

exactly where in the welfare budget that cut will be made. Will it fall on pensions or the disablement allowance? It is not credible to have a policy that cuts something for somebody but does not say who will pay the price.
The second black hole that has opened up relates to Kyoto. The Government have made a full commitment to meeting the Kyoto targets, and our commitment to that is as firm if not firmer. I had thought, following the stalwart efforts of the previous Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment, that the Conservatives were also committed to Kyoto. However, if the fuel escalator is abandoned, as the Conservatives suggest, that will have an adverse impact on our ability to meet our Kyoto targets.
I have a copy of a press release from the previous Government dated 30 November 1993, following the November 1993 Budget. It states:
The Chancellor also announced his decision to raise its commitment to real increases in the road fuel duties in future Budgets … to an average of at least 5 per cent.
That implies that 6 per cent. could fit that category. The press release continues:
The Chancellor's decisions reflect a number of factors including the need to raise revenue"—
so it was a milch cow even in those days—
and the need to encourage reductions in UK carbon dioxide emissions.
The need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions has not gone away: it is stronger than ever. Environmental analysis demonstrates that the need to take action on climate change is greater than it was six or seven years ago, but the Conservatives appear to be abandoning that policy. That is the second black hole that the Conservatives need to fill.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) earlier talked about two light bulbs. We should become more energy efficient, but the transport sector has increased carbon dioxide emissions when other sectors have seen their emissions fall. The transport sector is, therefore, a big problem in terms of carbon dioxide emissions.
It is also worth bearing in mind the fact that road freight traffic has increased by 67 per cent. since 1980. According to the Library's figures, it is set to double between 1996 and 2026. Whether or not hon. Members welcome that, it is premature to talk about 53,000 jobs being lost when such an increase is forecast. At the same time, rail freight has declined in gross tonnage by 32 per cent. since 1980. We must make efforts to ensure that the maximum amount of freight possible is transported by rail. The Government, to their credit, have introduced rail freight grants and taken other measures to achieve that. To the Conservatives' credit, the one part of rail privatisation that has been a success is the privatisation of rail freight, which has worked well with English, Welsh and Scottish Railways and other companies. Let us agree on that and build on attempts to put more freight on rail. That is not to say that all freight can go by rail as huge amounts of it must go by road. However, we must maximise use of the rail network.

Mr. Loughton: I am glad to hear the Liberals coming around to privatisation following the benefits that it has brought to rail services. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that much freight on rail is carried by diesel-powered locomotives and that the increase in diesel charges will have an impact on the railways? Does he


agree that those locomotives are not subject to the same stringent environmental emission standards as lorries, and we need a massive clean-up exercise on the railways?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman was highly selective in what he said about our view on rail privatisation. I had picked out the one bit that had been a success.

Mr. Loughton: The hon. Gentleman is making progress.

Mr. Baker: Not much, though. The hon. Gentleman made the valid point that locomotives should be as clean as possible. It might be helpful if Railtrack used some of its gross profits—gross in both senses—to invest in railways instead of dressing up regular maintenance as investment. There should be more money for electrification to deal with that problem.

Mr. Peter Snape: Any independent inquiry into the road haulage industry ought to consider the results of surveys under successive Governments that have indicated that, regardless of the substantial tax paid on them, the heaviest lorries in the UK do not meet their true track costs. Is it not time that there was—to use an overworked phrase—a level playing field for road and rail freight? The tilting of the field for several years has had its impact, and a declining amount of freight is carried by rail, with an equally adverse impact on traffic congestion, road deaths and the environment.

Mr. Baker: I agree entirely. There must be incentives to use rail and there must be no market distortions that discriminate against rail. The Government have begun to deal with the environmental impact of lorries, but we must ensure a greater correlation between environmental damage caused by lorries and charges imposed on road haulage companies. If the industry is working hard to clean up lorries—I think that it is doing so—we must ensure that it is rewarded, but we must discriminate against lorries that pollute.

Dr. Reid: We do.

Mr. Baker: I acknowledge that the Minister has begun that work, but it needs to go further.
We have some sympathy for the Conservative proposal for a Brit disc, because it relates to road usage. We are keener to tax road usage than simple ownership of vehicles. We must look at vehicle excise duties on our lorries, which are well in excess of duties in other European Union countries. That does not necessarily mean a big cut in revenues to the Exchequer, but we must examine the structure of the tax system to put more taxes on road use and fewer on vehicle ownership. Recently produced league tables show just how far out of line our VED is with duties in the EU.
We support the concept of what Conservatives call Brit discs, and we call Euro vignettes. I am pleased that the Government have announced that they will examine the idea. That is a sensible, non-confrontational approach.
I have mentioned Kyoto, but I have not yet dealt with the pollution factor, and it would be wrong to leave that out of a debate of this nature. One in seven of our children suffers from asthma, and up to 10,000 people a year die

prematurely because of particulate pollution. Any transport policy must include strategies to deal with those problems, or we shall fail our children and those who suffer from pollution.
The Liberal Democrats support the fuel escalator in principle, but it must not be a milch cow from which there is no return for the industry. We must reinvest the money—hypothecated, perhaps—to ensure that benefits result from the burden of taxation on the industry. My colleagues and I have continually supported the escalator for cars, but we match that support with calls for a cut in VED. The Budget provided a cut for 1100 cc cars, but we want VED to be abolished for all cars under 1600 cc, which would provide a specific link between the fuel escalator and the benefits that arise for transport, both public and private. We voted against the Budget's proposals on the escalator, and we want the Government to make a more explicit link.
We would support increased taxation on motorists and hauliers for environmental reasons. However, there would have to be a quid pro quo, and people would have to be able to see where their money was going rather than watching it disappear into the black hole of the Treasury. Taxation should be shifted from ownership to usage. We have considerable sympathy with the idea of a vignette system, under which hauliers pay according to their use of the road network, but there must be commensurate cuts in VED if that idea is to bring any benefit.
Such measures would help to level the playing field across Europe. The Liberal Democrats have long supported an EU-wide carbon tax to eliminate the kind of inconsistencies to which various hon. Members have drawn attention. The Government have made some promises today and they are listening to the road haulage industry, with which I hope they will continue to work. I hope, too, that the Government will take independent advice on the best way forward for both the industry and the environment.

Ms Joan Walley: This is an important and extraordinarily complex debate. Following the huff and puff and loud talk that we heard from the Conservatives an hour or so ago, the House has settled down to examine real issues underlying the creation of an integrated transport system.
I thank the Government for the green measures introduced in the Budget, for which we have waited enormously long. No one pretends that these hugely complex issues are easy to deal with. How are we to meet our Kyoto commitments? How should we start to think about the environment? How should polluters pay?
No one wants people to be forced out of business, and the only way forward is consensus. For the whole United Kingdom, in constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) and those of the other hon. Members who have spoken, we must bring together fiscal, environmental and transport measures in ways that will meet our international commitments while also taking into account issues such as competitiveness. The same is true of my own constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson); we regularly meet the North Staffordshire chamber of trade. The costs to industry of road traffic congestion are immense. None of the issues


that I have mentioned is separate from the matter raised for debate by the Opposition. We must tackle the whole of this complex matter.
I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport in his place because he has made huge progress. I have every confidence, following the 8 April discussions, that further meetings will involve freight and haulage operators, the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry. If we failed to find a way forward, we would send out a message that the Government did not care, but the opposite is true. The Government are determined to deal with the legacy left by the previous Government's failure to produce a policy for integrated transport.

Mr. Swayne: Does not the hon. Lady foresee that there will be a reduction in the number of freight miles as a result of the tax increases? Is not the logical conclusion of any such assumption that a number of haulage firms must inevitably go out of business?

Ms Walley: We live in a time of change, when we must consider our global, international commitments and the basis on which our industry operates. We must understand that it is no longer an option to do nothing about congestion and the environmental problems that we face. Inevitably, at any time of transition, there is also pain. We are all responsible people—at least those of us sitting on the Labour Benches are responsible; and I suspect that many of those sitting on the Opposition Benches also want to be responsible. We must find a way of pinpointing the problems at this time of transition, so that we can deal with them properly through the framework provided by what is being done by the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry, and by the policies of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. When we have identified the problems, we can do something about them in partnership.
That is why I feel that today's Opposition debate is not the action of a responsible party and a responsible Opposition. The debate was opened by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), a former Treasury Minister, who was responsible for the escalator that is causing so much pain, without any thought of how it would all turn out. Similarly, the former Minister of Transport, who was perhaps responsible for failing to persuade the previous Conservative Government of the importance of introducing proposals for integrated transport, is now the director-general of one of the haulage organisations associated with the direct action. That makes me wonder whether Members of Parliament want to exert pressure so that something is done, or do we merely want to produce a lot of hot air and dissent? Do we not want to be part of the solution? I want to be part of the solution; I want to work with those people in my constituency who ask for debates on this issue, so that we can find a way forward. That is crucial.
I followed carefully the progress of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport when he was the Minister for the Armed Forces. I have a special knowledge of his work because I was privileged to have an attachment with the Royal Air Force, and am aware of the tremendous regard in which he was held by members of the armed forces. If he gives anything like the commitment to his

current position that he gave to his previous position, we shall have the basis for progress. When I speak to those in my constituency who are anxious about this matter, I want to ensure that they and I can present their concerns directly to the industry forum for road haulage that has been established.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who is no longer in the Chamber, talked about his constituency in the heart of England, where he said that he had the highest proportion of profit-making industries. In my constituency, I represent one of the highest proportions of manufacturing industries. We have a great dependence on freight transport to send our goods to national and international markets, so it is not in our interest to have congestion or environmental problems. For all those reasons, we must find solutions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) referred to the environmental health costs; the problems associated with increased asthma and the costs of ill health to the national health service. We must reduce emissions; that is why green taxes are important. [Interruption.] I apologise for coughing, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think I must take a break to let my voice recover. [Interruption.]
I am grateful for that break, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I should speak more softly.
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister is considering the future of 44-tonne vehicles in the context of the wider debate that is properly being conducted on that subject. It is right that there should be tax concessions in the Budget for the more environmentally friendly 41-tonne, six-axle lorries. It is crucial that we find ways of giving incentives for more efficient vehicles that do less damage to the environment.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Walley: I will gladly give way.

Mr. Jenkin: It will give the hon. Lady a breathing space. We entirely agree with her on that point. The problem is that, after the massive increase in the vehicle excise duty for 40-tonne vehicles, the incentive offered by the Government for the 41-tonne, six-axle lorries is not sufficient. I have a fax from a Manchester Renault dealer in which he sets out the figures for his customers. He states:
The figures clearly show 'stalemate', they do not take into account the interest loss on the road fund licence difference … but only 0.5 mpg down … The only certainty is that in future years fuel costs will continue to rise.
Because six-axle trucks burn more fuel, he concludes that it is not worth buying a six-axle truck. The incentive is not enough. If the hon. Lady supports that policy, I urge her to make representations to her right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury to ensure that the differential is widened to create a sufficient incentive.

Ms Walley: I am grateful for that intervention. However, we are not talking about doing something overnight; we are talking about the long term—a five-year and a 10-year programme. We want to ensure that industry can compete in the long term. However, I will gladly recommend to my right hon. Friend the Minister that the matter should be considered in detail in the round table discussions with the various haulage operators.
However, I want to point out that this is a matter of swings and roundabouts. Previous speakers have vividly pointed out that, although the duty in this country might be higher, other costs are higher in other European countries—for example, labour costs and tolls. All that must be put in the picture. I feel strongly that singling out one particular issue, without considering the whole matter, is the wrong way forward; it is not responsible. It is important that we do not do that.
I have read, with great interest, that people in haulage companies such as Excel Logistics—based in my constituency—believe that techniques and technologies can be further refined to take account of the higher duties. We need to talk to those freight operators and, in partnership, discover what the issues are, so that we obtain the greatest efficiency from every litre of fuel used by haulage and the freight industry.
I want briefly to refer to the Budget measures, which are welcome. Hauliers will benefit from a range of measures: the reduction of the main rate of corporation tax to 30 per cent.; the cut in tax rates for small companies to 20 per cent; and a 10 per cent. rate for companies with profits of less than £10,000. In the long term, those measures will help us to deal with the problem, not by considering only one issue, but considering it as a whole.
The issue is not merely about competitiveness. It is no good for haulage and freight companies to be in business if congestion is so heavy that they cannot get the goods to market, so I want briefly to refer to transport policy. We have heard much about the loss of income to the Treasury if the Opposition motion were to be successful—of course, it will not be.

Mr. Loughton: How does the hon. Lady know?

Ms Walley: I do know—merely from counting the number of Members on the Opposition Benches. That is a good indicator.
Let us not forget the legacy inherited by the new Labour Government—a legacy of under-investment in transport. I welcome the three-year comprehensive spending review proposals whereby £700 million has already been allocated to local transport plans and local road maintenance. I know how many times my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, other hon. Members from north Staffordshire and I attended meetings with Conservative Ministers, but got nowhere. I know how much better is the settlement for local transport plans and road maintenance that was announced under the comprehensive spending review. I am also conscious that we have received an extra £300 million for trunk road maintenance, which is an important issue to hauliers and freight operators. An additional £300 million has been allocated to railways, as well as extra money for freight grants. My constituency contains a substantial rail freight depot whose potential should be maximised. I want other improvements to be made: for example, I want Railtrack to give further consideration to opening up the now abandoned line from Cauldon Lowe, through Endon, to Stoke-on-Trent and so reduce traffic.
All the measures being taken as a result of the Government's integrated transport policies will make an important difference. I do not want to stand here and simply congratulate the Government without adding that,

however far we go, we can always go further; we can never do enough, because more is always needed. In addition to the local transport plans, the welcome document "Breaking the Log Jam" and the work that has been done in respect of buses, freight transport and shipping, I should like to add an item to the shopping list: road traffic reduction. Yes, we have made progress on local and national road traffic reduction, but I want to take this opportunity to tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that I want further progress to be made. I want him to agree clear targets in partnership with everyone involved so that we can make progress on national road traffic reduction.

Mr. Baker: Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be helpful if the Government committed themselves to an absolute reduction in road traffic, rather than fudging the issue between having some reduction in road traffic and having a reduction in road traffic growth? We need an absolute target and a date by which the reduction should have taken place, and it would be helpful if the Government clarified their position on that issue.

Ms Walley: If there is one person who can never be accused of fudging anything, it is my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. There is a great deal of support for national road traffic reduction targets; however, with those, as with issues affecting road haulage, it is important that Ministers sit down with all those who have a stake in the issue and all those who are concerned about it and find a way of moving forward that commands everyone's support. There is no way that we can impose targets without having in place the mechanisms needed to meet them. If the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) is asking me whether I intend to press for that to happen, the answer is yes, I always have done and I shall continue to do so.
The issues affecting the road haulage industry are important, but the Opposition have played no part in helping to resolve those issues through the manner and hypocrisy that they have displayed during the debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should not suggest that any hon. Member is involved in hypocrisy—a political party, perhaps, but not an individual Member.

Ms Walley: I shall find a thesaurus and look for a more appropriate word, but I think that my point is well made.
The issues are important and we do not underestimate them in any way, but, during the next six months, 12 months, five years and 10 years, what is important is that the Government as a whole—the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—sit down with stakeholders and find a way forward that is in the interests of competitiveness, environmental commitments and environmental health in the constituencies that we represent.

Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). I congratulate her on recovering her voice, even though I do not entirely agree with some of her comments.
I have been involved in the issue of road haulage since last July, when I was invited by the local chairman of the Road Haulage Association to visit his business. I went along and took my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) with me, as, by that time, I had received several strong letters from RHA members in my constituency about the pernicious effect of the dramatic rise in the fuel duty escalator and vehicle excise duty which were introduced in the first Labour Budget.
Distribution and transport are a key industry in a rural constituency such as mine, where 95 to 97 per cent. of goods are moved by road. All my letters to Ministers at that time to which I refer received no answer of any consequence—only standard replies. In November last year, I introduced an Adjournment debate on the subject, over which you kindly presided, Mr. Deputy Speaker; again, I was given the brush-off. Most of the Economic Secretary's response to that debate was a repetition of the second page of the numerous letters that I had received in response to my letters on behalf of my constituents.
During that debate, I asked whether I could take a delegation from the industry to meet the Economic Secretary, but that request was refused, although she kindly granted me half an hour, as I mentioned earlier. Only later, after real pressure had been applied, was I allowed to take along the director-general of the RHA to meet some civil servants, who apparently had either not received any of the letters that had been sent to the Department or not understood properly many of the representations that had been made. Only after constant pressure, more letters and a major lobby of Parliament did the Government finally begin to listen.
It is a pity that the Minister of Transport has left the Chamber, because I emphasise that, at every stage when speaking at rallies and conferences attended by truckers, I have insisted that they should not disrupt the flow of traffic and annoy the public. I argued that alienating the public just as the truckers were beginning to win the argument would be a mistake.
It was with great interest that we in the campaign began to hear rumours of the KPMG report. It was mentioned by the Deputy Prime Minister, who quoted it as stating:
KPMG has examined haulage companies and has made it clear that … business costs are £600,000 higher in the Netherlands and £820,000 higher in Belgium."—[Official Report, 14 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 222.]
I ask the Minister to ensure that the KPMG figures are put in the Library, because the report contains no reference to Holland or Belgium. I read the report for the first time yesterday; I was surprised, because the Government have hung so much on it, to find that it was not about the road haulage industry at all.
The report's title is "The Competitive Alternatives: A comparison of business costs in North America, Europe and Japan". The three main sponsors are the Royal Bank of Canada, Ontario Power Generation and Canada Bell. The preface clearly states:
KPMG has conducted a comparison of the costs of doing business in eight countries in North America, Europe, and Japan.
Among the other sponsors are 26 Canadian organisations, the Austrian Business Agency in Vienna and the Telford development agency in the United Kingdom. The UK cities mentioned are Telford, Cardiff and Manchester. Only six pages mention transportation.
The phrase on which the Government have hung everything is found on page 6, which states:
Transportation costs. Road freight costs are lowest for Austria and the UK".
However, that is qualified on page 27, which clearly states:
Due to their compact market areas, Austria and the UK offer the lowest road freight costs".
It is interesting to note how close USA costs are to those levels, because of the low cost of diesel in the USA, especially when one considers the huge distances travelled in that country. Page 74 carries the warning:
Caution must be used in interpreting overall transportation costs, since the modal splits and relative costs of transportation vary significantly among industries, and the specific distribution patterns developed for each industry also affect total costs.
The last page of the report contains a list of companies consulted about road transportation costs. Two of the companies are from north America: one is KPMG Montreal and the other is Crowley Maritime. One company is from Austria, four are from France and two are from Germany and there is one each from Italy and Japan. Those involved in the manufacturing industry will recognise those companies as freight forwarding agencies, rather than road haulage companies.
The company of most interest to the United Kingdom is Brian Yeardley Continental Ltd. I have corresponded with Mr. Yeardley for some time and I telephoned him today. He is amazed that he has been cited as the source of the beneficial regime in the road haulage industry. He can conclude only that, as he files his accounts in February, his accounts for 1997 were used as evidence. He reminded me this morning that, when the Conservatives left power, only Luxembourg, Belgium and Spain had cheaper diesel than the United Kingdom.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding in this area. I think that we should put the KPMG report behind us and the Government should forget this unhappy episode. They have tried to hang everything on the report and it is unfortunate that KPMG has been dragged into the argument. It has conducted an interesting survey of business costs which, I am delighted to say, proves that Telford—which was in Shropshire, but is now a unitary authority—is the best place to invest.
Of all the people to choose, Mr. Yeardley is possibly the worst example because 20 of his 95 trucks are already flagged out to Luxembourg. He made it clear this morning that, unless he receives satisfaction from the forum—I welcome that body and am delighted that it has been established, even though it is nine months too late—and sees some improvement in the current regime, all his trucks will be flagged out to Luxembourg. Mr. Yeardley said:
I would be stupid not to as the advantages are so good.
Mr. Yeardley warned me before the Budget—this is an important point for Government Members—that he issues weekly bulletins to all his drivers informing them of the cheapest fuel on offer in each European country and advising them not to take on fuel in the United Kingdom. He said:
Our depot fuel facility is locked and special permission required to use it.
I know of another company in Kettering that has not filled up a truck in this country since autumn 1997. That is not surprising, because Mr. Yeardley gave me a list of


the prices that he pays in the United Kingdom. He pays £702 for 1,200 litres of regular diesel and £690 for ultra-low sulphur diesel, which is levied at 1p less a litre. That means that there is a £260.60 price difference if his drivers fill up in France, a £330 difference per truck every time his drivers fill up in Belgium and an incredible £350.40 if they fill up in Luxembourg. We cannot blame Mr. Yeardley for actively considering moving his entire fleet to Luxembourg.

Mr. Swayne: Is my hon. Friend not being somewhat optimistic by expressing the pious hope that something positive will emanate from the consultative group? The Chief Secretary set the tone in his speech when he told us that there was overcapacity in the industry and that most of the problems were caused by fuel inefficiency in that industry.

Mr. Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Thanks to the campaign fought by this party—with the full co-operation of the trucking industry—we have at last got a forum and the Government are finally beginning to listen.
My next example is even worse. The dairy built by Müllers is the huge success story in my constituency. The 120 million litres of milk transported to that dairy every year are carried by diesel-fuelled trucks and every one of the 750 million pots of yoghurt is carried by a diesel-fuelled truck. There was an opening at the dairy on Monday—conducted with great grace by Joanna Lumley—and I took the opportunity to talk to Mr. Mattmer, the Bavarian head of the company's logistics division.
I received details of the company's operations. It runs 50 trucks in the United Kingdom and 230 trucks in Germany. Before it built the plant, it ran weekly truckloads from Germany. Running a truck for 100,000 miles a year at an average of eight miles a gallon, the company estimates that there is a difference between the two countries of £18,056.35 on fuel, road tax and insurance. That is a huge sum, and the company told me quite clearly that, unless the regime is changed, trucks in Market Drayton will soon bear German number plates because the German Government have adopted a more sensible attitude to vehicle excise duty. The company is also considering moving to Luxembourg.

Mr. Roy Beggs: It is only a matter of time before the same thing happens in Northern Ireland. At present, drivers can save £230 on a 250 gallon tank, and no fuel duty revenue goes to the United Kingdom Exchequer. There is already a £4,000 differential on vehicle excise duty. Is it the Government's policy to destroy the road freight industry in Northern Ireland? Is that how they will assist the achievement of a united Ireland? Urgent action must be taken. Is it not a coincidence that tonight's edition of the Belfast Telegraph carries the report that 30 vehicles have been seized in the past week by Customs and Excise, despite the fact that, two years ago, I asked for additional customs officers to be made available? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must show that they intend to protect our road freight industry?

Mr. Paterson: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that powerful intervention. Unfortunately, I do not have the figures before me, but my right hon. Friend the Member

for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) asked the Government how much excise duty was lost in Northern Ireland because of smuggling over the border to the Republic of Ireland. My right hon. Friend received the incredible answer that the Government did not know. That is an absolutely astonishing admission: the Government simply do not care.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Smuggling is an illegal activity, so how does he expect the Government to know how much revenue has been lost?

Mr. Paterson: If trucks from Northern Ireland refuel south of the border, revenue is lost to the Government.
Mention has been made of the beneficial corporation tax rate. It is interesting to note that, although the Labour party in opposition fought every reduction in corporation tax, it is now hanging much on it in terms of the road haulage industry. I urge Labour Members to listen to the following fairly simple figures—they do not need to concentrate quite as hard as the Deputy Prime Minister might. For a typical company with 10 trucks turning over £1 million a year, with each truck doing 100,000 miles at £1 a mile, the fuel element is about 35p a mile. Following the tremendous hike in the Budget, the VED on the 10 40-tonne trucks will be £57,500, with a total of £407,500 on fuel—

Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Does he agree that fuel excise duties disproportionately affect rural communities and rural companies? Only this afternoon, I spoke to a haulier, Jim Welch of Fowler Welch, and he agreed that fuel duty is particularly damaging because of local links with the agriculture and food industries. Rural Britain is disproportionately affected by the Government's swingeing increases—which is typical of a Government who have done so much to damage the countryside.

Mr. Paterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; he understands rural affairs very well. The increases have a crippling effect on constituencies such as ours, where 97 per cent. of freight is carried by road.
I shall finish citing the profit figures. If the company in question has a 3 per cent. profit margin—which is highly unlikely, given the losses and the number of people going out of business—corporation tax will be £6,000. That is nothing compared with a bill for £407,500. The Government do not understand the damage that they are doing to haulage businesses all over the country. Nor do they understand that there is a knock-on effect, because companies that cannot use flagged-out businesses from abroad will have to absorb increased prices. Every business in this country is made less competitive and less efficient than it would be if the Government had a more realistic regime on VED and fuel duty, such as those that prevail in other continental countries.

Mr. Peter Snape: Following the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) is like following a heavy goods vehicle uphill—he has a billowing exhaust and he does not make much progress. I know that he has made this issue his own as far as the regional press in the west midlands is concerned.
Like most Conservative Members in supposedly safe Tory seats, the hon. Gentleman scraped home at the last election. I wonder what he said to his pals in the road haulage industry about those four Budgets from 1993 to 1997 when the fuel tax escalator was increased by a proportionately far higher amount than the increase under this Government. I remind him that inflation was running out of control at certain times during the previous Conservative Government's period in office. As the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), reminded us, a minimum increase of 5 per cent. above inflation in those days was much more damaging to the road haulage industry than anything that this Government have done.
I concede that, with his selective use of statistics, the hon. Member for North Shropshire has captured many headlines in the regional press. It is a great pity that some of the people who read those headlines were not here to hear him stuttering through the report which he read rather badly and extremely selectively.
The motion refers to 53,000 redundancies in the road haulage industry. Nobody, not even Conservative Front Benchers, believes those figures. I have heard an attempted justification of them by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who will wind up the debate for the Conservatives. I remind him and the Conservative party that, when I began to work on the railway, over 40 years ago, about 150,000 people were employed in that industry, many of them in the freight moving business. There are not nearly as many of them now, and not many tears, crocodile or otherwise, were shed by the Conservative party when those jobs were lost, partly because of the incompetence of railway management.
I have to say that, when looking back to when the railway industry was in the public sector, I do not recognise the golden age, particularly in freight, that some of my hon. Friends talk about. Much rail freight was lost by incompetence by railway management in the past two decades, but much more of it was lost because of the fiscal unfairness and financial imbalance between the road haulage industry and the rail freight business.

Mr. Hayes: rose—

Mr. Snape: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He ambled in at the last minute and he has already intervened twice. I do not have the time, let alone the inclination, to take his intervention.

Mr. Hayes: I was just trying to bring the hon. Gentleman back to reality.

Mr. Snape: I am grateful, but, if I came back to reality accompanied by the hon. Gentleman, I would not be here—that is a dead cert.

Mr. Simon Burns: Should the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) not declare an interest?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Hon. Members must not conduct conversations across the Chamber from a sedentary position.

Mr. Snape: If the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) reads the rules, he will realise that I have no

need to declare an interest. I shall concede, if that is the right word—I am proud of this fact—that I am still a member of, and pay my subs to, the RMT. I am not paid for that representation, unlike some Conservative Members.
I return to my central point. The imbalance in taxation has brought about the present situation in the road haulage industry. I do not underestimate the problems caused to smaller owner-driver companies by the fuel tax escalator, but members of the Road Haulage Association will be the first to say privately that there is considerable overcapacity in the industry. Whatever many of them say about the price of diesel, they seem to find enough money to drive around and around our major towns and cities to make their protest, and they will say that, at that end of the market, people will cut each other's throat for a back load.
There is no doubt that there is considerable wastage in the road haulage industry: one has only to drive up and down our roads and motorways to see how many empty heavy goods vehicles there are. Unless we get taxation right, putting more freight on the railway system is likely to continue to be an uphill battle, despite the best efforts of English, Welsh and Scottish Railways.
The hon. Member for North Essex, who is winding up the debate, said earlier that the crippling tax system was having a distorting effect on the road haulage industry. I repeat a remark that I made when I intervened on the hon. Member for Lewes: every survey has shown that, at the heavier end of the heavy lorry market, companies do not pay their full track costs. The size of their lorries and the length of their journeys mean that they are the very people who are in direct competition with the rail freight industry, which for many years has been forced to pay its full track costs and, under the previous Conservative Government, achieve an 8 per cent. return as well. Where is the fairness and sense in that?
No Labour Member would claim that the railway industry could carry all, or even a major proportion of, the freight that is on our roads at present, but it could certainly carry a lot more if we did not have a fiscal imbalance.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, who will wind up the debate, will make it clear to the road haulage industry that we cannot tolerate the behaviour that it has demonstrated. That behaviour has been supported by Conservative Members. A former leader of the Tory party and Prime Minister would, whenever there was an industrial dispute, point at the Labour Benches and invite Labour Members utterly to condemn that dispute. We have had pretty mealy-mouthed condemnation of the present situation by the Conservative party, which is not the party of law and order because the Conservatives destroyed both when they were in power. Law and order do not mean much to them when their friends are misbehaving.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will bear it in mind that any concession made as a result of activities by road hauliers will lead to many other people behaving in the same way. The road haulage industry had better distance itself from present events. I am second to nobody in the House in my admiration for Mr. Steven Norris, who currently heads the Road Haulage


Association. His industry, at work and elsewhere, is a great example to us all, but he ought to be more upfront in his condemnation of present activities.

Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Snape: No.
We cannot have blackmail, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will make it plain to the reputable sector of the road haulage industry that it has its forum and it had better wait for the outcome, instead of holding our towns and cities to ransom, as it is doing.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I make no apology for supporting business in this debate, because the Government are putting business under pressure. I am a little surprised that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) did not mention his chairmanship of the bus division of the National Express Group and all the subsidiary boards of which he is a member, because I would be astonished if he was not paid for those directorships. The Government have extended the bus fuel duty rebate, so his industry is protected from the fuel duty increase in the Budget, and I am not surprised that he is happy to support the Government in this debate.

Mr. Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: No, the hon. Gentleman would not give way to anyone in his speech, so I shall not give way to him.

Mr. Snape: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has just attacked me and will not now give way. I put it on the record that it is not necessary for me to declare any interest that is in the Register of Members' Interests, particularly when I am speaking in a debate that has no relevance to the bus and coach industry. I am proud to be a chairman of a bus company, something that the hon. Gentleman will never be.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Jenkin: The volume of rail freight has increased because our policy of privatisation brought private investment into the rail industry, and we are pleased about that.
The debate has been dominated by the issue of the fuel escalator, which was raised by the Chief Secretary. I point out to him that when we left office, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) pointed out, only three countries in the European Union had a diesel price lower than that in the United Kingdom. The massive differential in diesel prices has opened up under this Government. The Chief Secretary seems unable to understand that an environmental tax would not cease to be an environmental incentive if the Government froze it. Tax would still be 85 per cent. of the cost of diesel. We do not propose to make a dramatic alteration to that duty. We want to reverse the increase announced in the Budget and to discontinue the fuel duty escalator. It is not acceptable for the Government to cower behind silly words to the effect that it is somehow our responsibility that they keep increasing taxes.
The Conservative party's record on the environment is unimpeachable. When we were in office, we met all the targets. The Labour party inherited environmental targets that were eminently achievable, if only it would pursue them. To say that our tax announcements would leave a hole in the Government's finances, when they are raising an extra £9 billion—[Interruption.] No, the Government are increasing the tax take by £9 billion over and above Conservatives' tax plans for the lifetime of this Parliament. If the Chief Secretary does not have money coming out of his ears, I suggest that he consider the spending side of his equation, as opposed to the taxation side. For the Government to retreat behind the suggestion that other business taxes somehow offset the huge cost disadvantage caused by fuel duties and vehicle excise duty is ridiculous.
The Government cannot dismiss the Brit disc on the basis that there is some Brussels diktat which means that we cannot introduce it. The proposal from the European Union, which is on the Minister's desk—he probably does not even know about it—and which requires our consent for France to give a fuel duty rebate to its own road hauliers, gives the lie to that idea. I assure the Minister that the Conservative party will not allow some silly Brussels diktat to stand in the way of a fair deal for the UK road haulage industry.
The Government were elected on a promise—a vow explicitly given by the Prime Minister—not to raise taxes. He claimed that
our policies need no new taxes at all".
We have called this debate not only because the Government have flagrantly broken their own tax pledge, but because Labour's tax increases are having a devastating effect on UK competitiveness in general, as well as on the road haulage industry in particular.
While the Government say, "Crisis, what crisis?", it is clear that the industry is indeed in crisis. The Government should take this opportunity, as I know the Minister of Transport would dearly love to do, to show that they have listened. However, the only way to prove that is to act.
Today, we have announced that the fuel duty escalator should end. Next week, we shall vote to reverse the Government's fuel duty increases, giving all Labour Members the opportunity to show that they have listened. Today, we are also promoting our proposal for the Brit disc, which would mean that foreign hauliers would have to pay to use British roads just as UK hauliers have to pay for using many roads on the continent. That is a first step to removing the competitive disadvantages that the Government have heaped on UK business.
Will the Minister confirm—

Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: No, I shall not.
Will the Minister confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister got it completely wrong last week? Will he confirm that the Government are indeed considering the Brit disc idea, and that that means unpicking the Budget in order to be able to cut VED rates with the proceeds of the Brit disc? If he introduces a Euro vignette, it will simply be an extra tax on the road haulage industry unless he applies the revenue to the reduction of VED.
Will the Minister admit that the Government have created cost disadvantages for the UK haulage sector and all who are dependent on it? The Government do not need to take just our word for it. The managing director of Fergusons of Northumberland wrote that he had had a meeting with Nissan:
The meeting was to inform me that we had been unsuccessful in our bid for a new contract which they had decided to award to a Dutch … company, which, they said, was purely on the basis of price … we are unable to maintain a competitive edge in the UK let alone Europe".
Mr. Ken Willis in the west country said:
The Government know they have a captive market-we have to either pay up or go under.
Mr. John Newton of NWT of Buckinghamshire complained:
our foreign competitors have a 16 per cent. advantage over domestic hauliers … The effect on tens of thousands of jobs … will be catastrophic.
The truth is that the Government are still deeply in denial. At the Freight Transport Association conference, the Minister of Transport claimed that he was
convinced that you do not suffer from any serious competition
and that
the fuel duty escalator is here to stay".
The farce of the KPMG report underlines the Government's sheer cynicism and ignorance. The report is intended as a guide for certain types of industrial and service businesses which may be deciding where to locate their operations. It is not aimed at the road haulage sector; nor is it an indication of that sector's competitiveness.
I have spoken to KPMG. It has been taken for a ride by the Government. KPMG will not assume any responsibility for the way in which the Minister and his colleagues have been using the figures. Nevertheless, the Minister is shamelessly using the figures from the report to try to support his ludicrous claims that Government tax policies have not made UK road hauliers uncompetitive.
In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) explained, the reason Britain and Austria offer the lowest road freight costs is what is called our "compact market areas"—that is, our trucks have to travel the shortest distances, in the UK. This factor is utterly irrelevant to the costs per mile of running a UK-registered truck on UK-purchased fuel in competition with EU hauliers on the same roads.
I have written to the Minister to invite him to agree with the industry a proper remit for a proper report that is explicitly about the competitiveness of the road haulage sector, to be commissioned from KPMG or any other reputable firm. That has not been agreed to by the forum. The right hon. Gentleman wants to keep it all in house so that he can control the information. I do not see how the dispute with KPMG can be cleared up unless KPMG issues a clear statement, so I invite KPMG to do so. If it declines, one must ask why it does not want clarity in respect of the information in its report. There has been more of a misunderstanding between KPMG in London and KPMG in Canada than the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to admit.
Why does the Minister not take the advice of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who asked him in the House last week:
Will my right hon. Friend ask his officials, or Treasury officials, to dig out the figures that really matter in this whole argument—the transport cost per tonne per kilometre, by road and by rail, in each European country, including the United Kingdom?"—[Official Report, 13 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 9.]
That is the sort of analysis that is needed, not the hijacking of some other irrelevant report.
As it is, the survey data used in the KPMG report to calculate road freight costs are probably more than two years out of date and do not reflect Labour's first three Budgets. On top of that, the data are based on only one UK haulier, Brian Yeardley Continental Ltd., of Featherstone in West Yorkshire. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire pointed out, Mr. Yeardley wrote to us:
The Chancellor has ensured that we are uncompetitive against foreign hauliers"—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Conversations are breaking out across the Chamber. Hon. Members must listen to the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House. [Interruption.] I repeat: order.

Mr. Jenkin: I was reading an extract from a fax from the company that is the subject of the KPMG report. The fax states:
The Chancellor has ensured that we are uncompetitive against foreign hauliers … Each of our vehicles must earn seventeen thousand pounds more annually than our European competitors to cover these extra tax costs.
Finally, Mr. Yeardley, whom the Government would present as the model example of the competitiveness of UK haulage under Labour, has confirmed that his company is one of those that will be flagging out their vehicles to escape Labour's crippling taxes. Nothing could demonstrate more graphically the hopeless fraud of the Government's position. The very evidence that they are using can be exposed as, first, utterly irrelevant, and secondly, out of date; thirdly, it can be confounded by the very facts of the example that the Government are seeking to deploy.
We urge the Government to listen. If 50,000 jobs at Longbridge are worth a subsidy of £175 million when there is massive overcapacity in the motor industry, why will the Government not listen to one of Britain's other vital industries? We urge the Government to scrap the fuel duty escalator, which has now gone far beyond any environmental justification. We urge the Government to reverse the fuel duty increases that they imposed in the Budget, and we commend the Brit disc as a vital first step towards a fair deal for British hauliers and for British business as a whole.

The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): This has been an important debate, announced as such by the Conservatives and lauded as their major campaign. It is therefore rather a tragedy that for most of the debate there were no more than three Conservative Back Benchers present in the Chamber. Indeed, at one stage I calculated that all the Conservative Back-Bench and Front-Bench Members could be fitted into the cabin of a 3x3 six-axle


articulated truck. When the Conservatives make promises to people outside the House, they should make sure that they keep those promises—at least by turning out to participate in the debate.
The Government recognise the contribution of the road haulage industry to the economy and the well-being of the country. That is why, since we came to power, we have tried to work with the industry. That is why we took such time and such care to develop and publish our strategy on sustainable distribution. We produced a document in consultation with the road haulage industry that was welcomed by the industry only two months ago.
We have developed that partnership into the road haulage forum. It is a calumny to suggest that the Government started talking to the industry only during the past few weeks. We have been doing so from the day that we took power. We have established the road haulage forum to bring together the hauliers' representatives and Ministers to address the problems facing sections of that industry.
Of course, we cannot, and I will not, promise that in this or any other industry no job will ever be lost. That would be an unrealistic and cruel illusion of the sort that is sometimes attributed to old Labour, but which is increasingly associated with the new Conservatives, such as the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson).
The hon. Gentleman seems obsessed with the report by KPMG and with claims that he claims were made on the basis of that report, which I have never made, and the accusation that that was done without the knowledge or acceptance of KPMG; whereas I explained to him that I went out of my way to invite KPMG to be present as observers when I made my comments on it. I am only sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not been in the House long enough to develop the courtesy or the courage to apologise when he is wrong.
I cannot promise, and nor can my colleagues, a blank cheque from the taxpayer to cover the costs—financial, physical, social or environmental—that any industry incurs. That would not be fair to the taxpayer or, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) pointed out, to the industry's competitors in the rail freight business. However, I can promise that I have listened and will continue to listen to the industry's concerns, and that we will do all we can to ensure that it remains at the forefront of efficiency and competitiveness.
That approach was rejected tonight by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) and by several of his hon. Friends. They are walking the tightrope and trying to disguise that fact with their weasel words and their refusal to condemn the disruption that has been imposed on the citizens of this country. In the words that their former leader used in such circumstances, they are too frit to stand up to the militants who want to bully the Government into changing political decisions of the House, as enshrined in the Budget.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Big man.

Dr. Reid: Exactly—unable to stand up to the big mouths of the industry, as the hon. Gentleman says.
It is not I who maintain that the road haulage forum is constructive. Let me quote the Freight Transport Association after the first meeting, which stated that it was
very impressed and encouraged by the will, intent and urgency of the Forum to get to grips with our industry's problems without delay".
Those are not my words, but the words of responsible elements in the road haulage industry.
I repeat what I have said before: the Conservative party will choose either dialogue or disruption as the way forward. I am glad that the spokesman for the Liberal party, the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), regardless of his criticisms, showed that he was on the side of rationality and dialogue—as opposed to the Conservatives, who seem intent on encouraging and inciting disruption.

Mr. Baldry: rose—

Mr. Paterson: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Dr. Reid: It is too late for cringing apologies.

Mr. Baldry: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has not had the courtesy to give way. At no time during my speech or that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) did we encourage disruption. I hope the Minister will have the courtesy to acknowledge that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is a point for debate.

Dr. Reid: That is precisely why I referred to the hon. Gentleman's words as weasel words. We should have heard thorough condemnation of the disruption that has taken place in Britain. Tonight's debate has allowed a great—

Mr. Paterson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it a point of debate to misinterpret what an hon. Member has said? I went out of my way to make it clear at every meeting of the haulage industry that I have attended that I condemn—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Such points made in debate by hon. Members are not a matter for the Chair. They are a matter for debate.

Dr. Reid: The Opposition's attempts to talk out my contribution will not work. I shall continue until I have finished.
Tonight's debate has allowed many hon. Members to express their concerns, some warranted and others less well founded, about the future of the haulage industry and also about wider issues such as the environment, a matter that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). It has allowed us, at least on this side of the House, to look at the multiplicity of factors affecting the industry, rather than concentrating myopically on only one form of tax classification or one aspect of the fiscal duties imposed by the Government.
The debate has allowed us to lay before the House the range of assistance that the Government are already providing to an industry that is basically sound, but


elements of which are undergoing the pains of overcapacity. Above all, it has allowed us to expose the hollowness of the Opposition case—or the hogwash, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) called it.
We have seen the Tory party reduced to arguing tonight that the prime factor in business success or failure is not the market, but Government intervention; demanding that we accept European priorities on taxation, rather than British priorities; and meekly acquiescing in industrial and social disruption to change the democratic decisions of the House.
The Tories' case this evening has been based on three propositions. The first is that the British haulage industry is uncompetitive by international standards. The second is that any difficulties being faced by that industry must be the result of Government policy. The third proposition is that the Conservative party is in no way associated with those policies. The first proposition is just plain wrong. The second is a gross over-simplification. The third—that the Tories are not associated with those policies—is the most brazen piece of political hypocrisy camouflaged as righteous indignation, even by the standards of the Tory party of the 1990s.
Let us turn to one or two of the issues that the Opposition have raised—the fuel duty escalator, for instance. They turned up, crying their tears, an onion in one hand and a Yorkie bar in the other, declaring that they were the hauliers' friends and that they have just discovered the fuel duty escalator. The Conservatives thought up the fuel duty escalator; theirs is the party that introduced it; theirs is the party that maintained it between 1993 and 1997; theirs is the party that increased it. Yet they have the cheek to raise it tonight.
Who was the Treasury Minister responsible—the Paymaster General—when the Conservatives introduced the fuel duty escalator? Who was the man who introduced, maintained and increased it? I shall tell the House who: none other than the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory).

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The right hon. Gentleman is incorrect. Will he withdraw what he has said? If he looks at the record, he will discover that I was not Paymaster General when the fuel duty escalator was introduced. Will he correct the record for the benefit of the House?

Dr. Reid: I shall check the record, although the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that he paraded through the country defending the fuel duty escalator. Will he deny that?
As the Tories go round the country, they claim that of every £10 that is spent on fuel, £8.50 is tax. What they do not mention is that of that £8.50, £7.70 was tax when they left office two years ago. They make claims about the increase in the fuel duty escalator. Under this Government, there has been an increase of 7p a litre in the fuel duty escalator, but under their Government, the increase was 26p. The Tories talk about hauliers going out of business—tragically, some of them are—but 5,000 hauliers lost their jobs under the previous Conservative Government. There is a problem with the haulage industry; the main one is overcapacity. That is one of the things that we want to address in the haulage forum.
Some of these Conservatives spoke as though they had just discovered unemployment, as if it were some unknown phenomenon before it afflicted sections of the haulage industry. I can tell them that we on the Government Benches understand unemployment only too well. We saw it, felt it, suffered it in our towns, villages and communities day after day, week after week, under almost 20 years of Conservative rule. We are neither immune to nor surprised by the effects of unemployment on individuals in the haulage industry. We saw unemployment in whole industries, such as mining and steel and printing. I only wish that, instead of the crocodile teeth then, we had seen today's crocodile tears.
I am precluded from addressing some of the other issues raised owing to the number of participants in the debate, but I shall end my remarks with one point. The Conservatives ought to be very careful how far they swing on the pendulum. I understand that last night, under the birth of new Conservatism, the deputy leader of the Conservative party walked away from the free market, telling us that the free market had a limited role. In this debate, we have not even seen new Conservatism; we have seen nouvelle Conservatism.
The new Tories are asking us to believe that job losses are the fault of Government, not of the market, that British taxes should be set not by our people but by Luxembourg and France, that disruptive action by militants should be condoned and dialogue ignored. They are not on a U-turn; they are on a roundabout.
The motion smacks of opportunism and hypocrisy. As their last Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), said when he introduced the fuel duty escalator, anyone who pretends to support a balance of environmental considerations but attacks the escalator is sailing close to hypocrisy. There is a mayday signal coming from the Tories because they are on a tidal wave of hypocrisy. That is why they will not receive the support of the House in the Lobby.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 341.

Division No. 148]
[7.5 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Clappison, James


Amess, David
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Collins, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Colvin, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Bell Martin (Tatton)
Cran, James


Bercow, John
Curry, Rt Hon David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Blunt, Crispin
Day, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brady, Graham
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Nigel


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fabricant, Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fallon, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Flight, Howard


Burns, Simon
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Butterfill, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Cash, William
Fox, Dr Liam


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Fraser, Christopher



Gale, Roger


Chope, Christopher
Garnier, Edward






Gibb, Nick
Paterson, Owen


Gill, Christopher
Pickles, Eric


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Prior, David


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robathan, Andrew


Green, Damian
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Greenway, John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Grieve, Dominic
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Hammond, Philip
Ruffley, David



Hawkins, Nick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hayes, John
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Heald, Oliver
Shepherd, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Soames, Nicholas


Horam, John
Spicer, Sir Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Spring, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Steen, Anthony


Hunter, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Syms, Robert


Jenkin, Bernard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Johnson Smith,
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Key, Robert
Taylor, Sir Teddy


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Thompson, William


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Townend, John


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Tredinnick, David


Lansley, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Tyrie, Andrew


Letwin, Oliver
Viggers, Peter


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Walter, Robert


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Wells, Bowen


Loughton, Tim
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Luff, Peter
Whittingdale, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wilkinson, John


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Willetts, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wilshire, David


Maples, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Mates, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Yeo, Tim


Nicholls, Patrick
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Norman, Archie
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ottaway, Richard
Mrs. Caroline Spelman and


Paice, James
Mrs. Eleanor Laing.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Betts, Clive


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Blackman, Liz


Allan, Richard
Blears, Ms Hazel


Allen, Graham
Blizzard, Bob


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Boateng, Paul


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Borrow, David


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Atkins, Charlotte
Bradshaw, Ben


Austin, John
Brand, Dr Peter


Baker, Norman
Breed, Colin


Ballard, Jackie
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Banks, Tony
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Barnes, Harry
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Barron, Kevin
Buck, Ms Karen


Battle, John
Burden, Richard


Bayley, Hugh
Burnett, John


Beard, Nigel
Burstow, Paul


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Butler, Mrs Christine


Begg, Miss Anne
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cable, Dr Vincent


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Benton, Joe
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bermingham, Gerald
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)





Cann, Jamie
Galloway, George


Casale, Roger
Gapes, Mike


Caton, Martin
Gardiner, Barry


Cawsey, Ian
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Chaytor, David
Gibson, Dr Ian



Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Church, Ms Judith
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clapham Michael
Godsiff, Roger


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Goggins, Paul


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Golding, Mrs Llin



Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Grogan, John


Clelland, David
Gunnell, John


Clwyd, Ann
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Coaker, Vernon
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hancock, Mike


Coleman, Iain
Harvey, Nick


Colman Tony
Heal, Mrs Sylvia



Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hepburn, Stephen


Cooper, Yvette
Heppell, John


Corbett, Robin
Hesford, Stephen


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Corston, Ms Jean
Hill, Keith


Cotter, Brian
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cranston, Ross
Hood, Jimmy


Crausby, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hope, Phil


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cummings, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire




Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dalyell Tam
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Humble, Mrs Joan


Darvill, Keith
Hurst, Alan


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hutton, John


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Illsley, Eric


Dawson, Hilton
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Denham, John
Jenkins, Brian


Dismore, Andrew
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dobbin, Jim 
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank




Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Drew, David



Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Efford, Clive
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Fearn, Ronnie
Keeble, Ms Sally


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Fitzpatrick, Jim 
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Keetch, Paul


Flint, Caroline
Kelly, Ms Ruth



Kemp, Fraser


Flynn, Paul
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Follett, Barbara
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Khabra, Piara S


Foster, Don (Bath)
Kidney, David


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fyfe, Maria
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)






King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Raynsford, Nick


Kingham, Ms Tess
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kirkwood, Archy
Rendel, David


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Laxton, Bob
Rooker, Jeff


Lepper, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Leslie, Christopher
Rowlands, Ted


Levitt, Tom
Roy, Frank


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Ruane, Chris


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Ruddock, Joan


Linton, Martin
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Livingstone, Ken
Ryan, Ms Joan


Livsey, Richard
Sanders, Adrian


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lock, David
Savidge, Malcolm


McAvoy, Thomas
Sawford, Phil


McCabe, Steve
Sedgemore, Brian


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Shaw, Jonathan


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Sheerman, Barry



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McDonnell, John
Shipley, Ms Debra


McIsaac, Shona
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Singh, Marsha


McNulty, Tony
Skinner, Dennis


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mallaber, Judy



Mendelson, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Martlew, Eric
Snape, Peter


Maxton, John
Soley, Clive


Meale, Alan
Southworth, Ms Helen


Merron, Gillian
Squire, Ms Rachel


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Stevenson, George


Miller, Andrew
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mitchell, Austin
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Moffatt, Laura
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stott, Roger


Moore, Michael
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Moran, Ms Margaret
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stringer, Graham


Morley, Elliot
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stunell, Andrew


Mountford, Kali
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mudie, George
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Oaten, Mark
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Temple-Morris, Peter


O'Hara, Eddie
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Neill, Martin
Timms, Stephen


Öpik, Lembit
Tipping, Paddy


Organ, Mrs Diana
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Truswell, Paul


Palmer, Dr Nick
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh?ton SE)


Pearson, Ian
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pendry, Tom
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Perham, Ms Linda
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pike, Peter L
Tyler, Paul


Plaskitt, James
Vis, Dr Rudi


Pond, Chris
Walley, Ms Joan


Powell, Sir Raymond
Ward, Ms Claire


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Webb, Steve


Purchase, Ken
White, Brian


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Wicks, Malcolm


Radice, Giles
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rammell, Bill
Winnick, David


Rapson, Syd
Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)





Wise, Audrey
Wyatt, Derek


Worthington, Tony



Wray, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Mr. Greg Pope and


Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 160.

Division No. 149]
[7.18 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Colman, Tony


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Allen, Graham
Cooper, Yvette


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Corston, Ms Jean


Ashton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cranston, Ross


Atkins, Charlotte
Crausby, David


Austin, John
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Banks, Tony
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Barnes, Harry
Cummings, John


Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Battle, John
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bayley, Hugh
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Beard, Nigel
Darvill, Keith


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Begg, Miss Anne
Davidson, Ian


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benton, Joe
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bermingham, Gerald
Dawson, Hilton


Betts, Clive
Dean, Mrs Janet


Blackman, Liz
Denham, John


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dismore, Andrew


Blizzard, Bob
Dobbin, Jim


Boateng, Paul
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Borrow, David
Doran, Frank


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dowd, Jim


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Drew, David


Bradshaw, Ben
Drown, Ms Julia


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Edwards, Huw


Buck, Ms Karen
Efford, Clive


Burden, Richard
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Butler, Mrs Christine
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fitzsimons, Lorna



Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Flynn, Paul


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Casale, Roger
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Caton, Martin
Fyfe, Maria


Cawsey, Ian
Gapes, Mike


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gardiner, Barry


Chaytor, David
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Church, Ms Judith
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clapham, Michael
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Godsiff, Roger



Goggins, Paul


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Coaker, Vernon
Grogan, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Gunnell, John


Coleman, Iain
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)






Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Martlew, Eric


Hepburn, Stephen
Maxton, John


Heppell, John
Meale, Alan


Hesford, Stephen
Merron, Gillian


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)



Hill, Keith
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hinchliffe, David
Miller, Andrew


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mitchell, Austin


Hood, Jimmy
Moffatt, Laura


Hoon, Geoffrey
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hope, Phil
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hopkins, Kelvin
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morley, Elliot


Hoyle, Lindsay
Mountford, Kali


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mudie, George


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mullin, Chris


Humble, Mrs Joan
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hurst, Alan
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hutton, John
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Hara, Eddie


Illsley, Eric
O'Neill, Martin


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jenkins, Brian
Palmer, Dr Nick


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pearson, Ian



Pendry, Tom


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Plaskitt, James



Pond, Chris


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Purchase, Ken


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Keeble, Ms Sally
Quinn, Lawrie


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Radice, Giles


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rapson, Syd


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kemp, Fraser
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Khabra, Piara S
Rooker, Jeff


Kidney, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Roy, Frank


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Ruane, Chris


Kingham, Ms Tess
Ruddock, Joan


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Ryan, Ms Joan


Laxton, Bob
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lepper, David
Savidge, Malcolm


Leslie, Christopher
Sawford, Phil


Levitt, Tom
Sedgemore, Brian


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Shaw, Jonathan


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Sheerman, Barry


Linton, Martin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Livingstone, Ken
Shipley, Ms Debra


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Lock, David
Skinner, Dennis


Love, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McCabe, Steve
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)




Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McDonnell, John
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McIsaac, Shona

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Snape, Peter


McNulty, Tony
Soley, Clive


MacShane, Denis
Southworth, Ms Helen


McWalter, Tony
Squire, Ms Rachel


McWilliam, John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mallaber, Judy
Steinberg, Gerry


Mendelson, Rt Hon Peter
Stevenson, George


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)





Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stott, Roger
Walley, Ms Joan


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Ward, Ms Claire


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wareing, Robert N


Stringer, Graham
White, Brian


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wicks, Malcolm


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)




Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Winnick, David


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wise, Audrey



Worthington, Tony


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wray, James


Timms, Stephen
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Tipping, Paddy
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Truswell, Paul
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Mr. Greg Pope and


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Mr. David Jamieson.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Allan, Richard
Foster, Don (Bath)


Amess, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Fox, Dr Liam


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fraser, Christopher


Baker, Norman
Gale, Roger


Ballard, Jackie
Garnier, Edward


Beggs, Roy
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Gibb, Nick


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Gill, Christopher


Bercow, John
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Beresford, Sir Paul
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair



Blunt, Crispin
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boswell, Tim
Green, Damian


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Grieve, Dominic


Brady, Graham
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Brand, Dr Peter
Hammond, Philip


Brazier, Julian
Hancock, Mike


Breed, Colin
Harvey, Nick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hayes, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Heald, Oliver


Burnett, John
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Burns, Simon
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Burstow, Paul
Horam, John


Butterfill, John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cash, William
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)



Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)



Hunter, Andrew


Chope, Christopher
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Jenkin, Bernard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Johnson Smith,


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Collins, Tim
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Colvin, Michael
Keetch, Paul


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Cotter, Brian
Key, Robert


Cran, James
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Day, Stephen
Lansley, Andrew


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Leigh, Edward


Duncan, Alan
Letwin, Oliver


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Nigel
Livsey, Richard


Fabricant, Michael
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Fallon, Michael
Llwyd, Elfyn


Fearn, Ronnie
Loughton, Tim


Flight, Howard
Luff, Peter






Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stunell, Andrew


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Swayne, Desmond


McLoughlin, Patrick
Syms, Robert


Maples, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Norman, Archie
Thompson, William


Oaten, Mark
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Öpik, Lembit
Townend, John


Ottaway, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Page, Richard
Trend, Michael


Paice, James
Tyler, Paul


Paterson, Owen
Tyrie, Andrew


Pickles, Eric
Walter, Robert


Prior, David
Wardle, Charles


Rendel, David
Waterson, Nigel


Robathan, Andrew
Webb, Steve


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Wells, Bowen


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Welsh, Andrew


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Ruffley, David
Whittingdale, John


Sanders, Adrian
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wilshire, David


Shepherd, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Yeo, Tim


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)



Spring, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Steen, Anthony

Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Streeter, Gary
Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House believes that everyone, including hauliers, must play their part in reducing emissions of carbon dioxide from transport, and that the road fuel duty escalator first introduced by the last Government acts as an incentive to greater fuel efficiency; deplores the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party for doing one thing in Government and another in Opposition; calls on it to explain which areas of public spending it would cut in order to pay for the abandonment of the fuel escalator; welcomes this Government's commitment to promoting a more dynamic business sector, in particular the measures taken to help the road haulage industry. including cuts in the corporation tax rates, freezing the rates of vehicle excise duty for most lorries for two years running, doubling the maximum reduction in vehicle excise duty for cleaner lorries, and reducing duty rates on ultra-low sulphur diesel relative to ordinary diesel; notes that the UK haulage industry benefits from the total tax burden on business in the UK being lower than that of other major EU member states, and lower than the average for the EU and the OECD; believes that the environmental measures this Government has introduced will play an important part in encouraging use of more fuel-efficient vehicles, cleaner fuels and greener modes of transport; and welcomes the dialogue that is now taking place between the industry and the Government in the Road Haulage Forum.

British Livestock Farming

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the collapse in farm incomes, especially in the livestock sector; expresses astonishment at Labour's claims to be the party of the countryside; condemns the Government's dismissive response to the deepening crisis in pig farming; deplores the lack of progress in restoring beef exports and ending the ban on beef on the bone; calls for a postponement of the imposition of further charges on slaughter houses; urges that Milk Marque be allowed to invest in processing capacity; recognises that British farmers work at a competitive disadvantage compared with those abroad because of excessive and unnecessary regulations; expresses dismay at the outcome of the European Agenda 2000 negotiations when a poor deal for British farmers, consumers and taxpayers was made worse by the Prime Minister; and calls for the reversal of all those government policies which are damaging the rural economy, the agricultural industry and the British countryside.
The debate is timely and necessary. Despite the widely acknowledged crisis in agriculture, this is only the second occasion on which the Minister has taken part in a full-scale debate on the subject since his appointment in July. Both debates—today's debate, and the debate in November—were held in Opposition time. If it had been left to Labour, the House would simply have ignored the destruction of Britain's livestock industry. That is a clear sign that this Government—I do not say "this Minister"—neither care about nor want to understand the problems of agriculture, and it is a clear sign that farming and the countryside are at the bottom of the Government's priorities, despite the existence of a crisis that becomes daily more acute.
Over the past two years, farm incomes have fallen by more than 50 per cent., and in the livestock sector, the position is even worse. Many businesses are losing money and struggling for survival. After two years of Labour government, farmers now need more than the warm words and sympathy for which the present Minister is famous. I pay tribute to his willingness to listen, and to travel—unlike his predecessor—even to parts of the country that are not served by Concorde, and I believe that he genuinely cares about the problems of fanners. The trouble is that caring is not enough: the Minister must also act, because he will be judged by deeds, not words. I shall be explaining how a Conservative Government would act.

Mr. Ian Cawsey: With BSE.

Mr. Yeo: I shall return to that shortly. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) may think that the main problem for pig, sheep and dairy farmers is directly related to BSE. If he and his colleagues care so little about a serious livestock crisis that all they can do is roar with laughter, I hope that farmers throughout the country will receive that message.

Mr. Edward Garnier: While Labour Back Benchers snigger at the fate of British farmers, may I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind—particularly when he visits Market Harborough on Friday—that livestock incomes and morale have fallen in my area, while Government-imposed costs have risen? Moreover,


we face the spectre of the encroaching tuberculosis that is affecting bovine herds. Can my hon. Friend say something that will improve the common sense of Labour Members?

Mr. Yeo: I look forward to my visit to my hon. and learned Friend's constituency. He will be glad to know that nearly every measure that I suggest this evening could be taken by Britain acting alone, would not cost anything and would be implemented by a Government for whom farming and the countryside were a real priority.

Mr. John Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government do not seem to care about the countryside because they do not represent the countryside? Labour Members laugh, but Labour's pole position rural constituency ranks 32nd among the most rural constituencies in Britain. Across Britain, the Conservatives gained 120,000 more votes than Labour in the most rural seats, and in terms of speeches, interventions and oral and written questions, Labour Members have signally failed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This has become an extremely long intervention. I remind the House that many hon. Members want to speak, and that too many interventions that are too long will damage their chances of being called.

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) was making a powerful point, to great effect. I know that he has researched the issue extremely carefully, and is about to produce powerful evidence to demonstrate the Government's failure to represent rural Britain.
The fact is that, week by week, pig farmers are going bust, slaughterhouses are closing down, dairy farmers are on their knees, beef remains unexported, and time is running out. This crisis is not about fat cats getting thinner; it is about small businesses going bust, and about men and women seeing a lifetime's work destroyed by the inaction of a Labour Government. Not only farmers are suffering. The Government need to understand that the whole rural economy—the very fabric of the countryside—is now under threat. These difficulties may not matter to Labour Members, but they matter to the country, and they should matter to the House.
Let us start with the pig industry. Last autumn, pig prices fell to 60p per deadweight kilogram. That is the lowest price for more than 20 years, and is half the 1997 level. Although there has been some recovery since then, British pig farmers are still losing money for the eighth month running, and many are going out of business altogether. Britain's breeding herd declined by 11 per cent. in 1998. When the market does improve, continental pig farmers will be best placed to benefit.
The Government's dismissive response to the report on pigs produced by the Select Committee on Agriculture was rightly condemned by the British Pig Industry Support Group, which commented:
The Government proved to be complacent to the point of incredulity.
British pig producers are required to operate to higher standards than those abroad, and consumers are shocked when they learn that some of the pigmeat sold in British supermarkets has been produced in ways that are not even allowed in this country.
When we debated the issue on 4 November, the Minister told us:
I hope that the Opposition … will welcome the agreement that I reached yesterday with the British Retail Consortium that supermarkets will not sell imported meat processed in the UK under a British label … The major retailers … have assured me also that, from 1 January 1999, all pigmeat sold in their outlets will be from animals raised to high welfare standards, with no stalls and tethers and no meat and bonemeal feedstuffs."—[Official Report, 4 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 952.]
We welcomed that statement, but unfortunately it turned out not to be true. In his eagerness to deflect criticism, the Minister exaggerated the commitment made by the retailers. I hope that any announcement he makes today will have been more carefully checked in advance. Last November, it turned out that, far from applying to all pigmeat as the Minister had claimed, the pledge applied only to fresh pork, and only to own-label products, not to leading market brands.
I invite the Minister to improve labelling, so that all pigmeat sold in Britain is labelled with the country of origin—where the pigs are actually reared, rather than where the meat has been processed—and with the method of production, so that consumers who want to support high animal welfare standards of the kind required of British farmers can choose to do so. All pigmeat—indeed, all meat sold anywhere in Europe—should be labelled in that way, but Britain could set an example immediately and voluntarily. Will the Minister call in the retailers next week to discuss the matter? Why cannot British consumers be told how the meat that they are buying has been produced?

Mrs. Angela Browning: My hon. Friend is right. My correspondence with the British Retail Consortium following the Minister's statement shows that a vast range of products—pies, sausages, cured hams and bacon—represent a high percentage of the pork that is sold in this country. In that sector particularly, the Minister's pledge on labelling needs to be addressed.

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend has great experience and expertise in these matters, and she is entirely right.
I also think that the Minister should test whether the import of illegally produced pigmeat into Britain could be halted altogether, possibly by the use of article 36 of the treaty of Rome. We know to our cost just how easy it was for other countries to halt the export of British beef, so why not at least give this a try? If a legal challenge follows—if the Minister tries, and is beaten—he will not be criticised by us, or by farmers or consumers. Indeed, we would salute his efforts.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: Does my hon. Friend think that the Minister would be well advised to explain why, in a written answer to me a few days ago, he said that he had no intention of exploring that avenue?

Mr. Yeo: The Minister more or less confirmed that in a letter that he wrote to me last week.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The answer is quite simple: it is illegal.

Mr. Yeo: The Minister has published no legal opinion to back up that assertion.
According to my observation of what has happened in the European Union over the past few years, many other countries are willing to challenge the system. Why are the British Government more keen to keep friendly with their allies on the continent than they are to look after the interests of British farmers?

Mr. Peter Luff: What view does my hon. Friend take of the subsidies being paid by the French Government to the French pig industry, and the legality of those payments?

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend anticipates the very next point that I was going to make.
Earlier this month, the French Government announced that more than £14 million of national aid would be paid to their pig farmers—on top of two previous aid packages, worth ¦50 million, which have been challenged by the European Commission. Will the Minister now challenge that unlawful national aid from the French Government to their pig farmers, which puts British pig producers at yet more of a disadvantage?

Mr. Nick Brown: I can give the hon. Gentleman the commitment for which he asks. If he gives me clear evidence of illegal state aids being paid by another member state—he cites the case of France—we shall complain, directly and at once, to the Commission.

Mr. Yeo: If the Minister would like to second some of the staff whom he has at his disposal, and give them to me for a month, I certainly shall provide very detailed evidence.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: While I might have some sympathy for the Minister, will my hon. Friend suggest to him that the best way forward would be to ask the British embassy in Paris to make the ordinary inquiries?

Mr. Yeo: My right hon. and learned Friend is quite right. Moreover, the matter has already been widely reported in the farming press. I find it astonishing that the Minister is asking me for the evidence. If he will say on the record that those stories are not true, I hope that that also will be reported in the farming press. We shall see what type of debate results from it.

Mr. John Bercow: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who is giving way generously. Does he understand that a young pig farmer—Mr. James King, from Cowley farm, Preston Bissett, near Buckingham—in my constituency is extremely proud of the fact that he has received absolutely no state subsidies? His gripe is not that he receives no subsidies, but that other European pig industries do—and that the Government are not fighting for Britain, but standing aside while his industry is damaged by the Government's indifference.

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. It is important that people should understand that the pig sector is outside the common agricultural policy regime and does not receive subsidy. Too many people think that pig farmers are


treated in the same way as other farmers and are able to collect payments under the CAP, but they are not, and they do not wish to. They simply wish to have the level playing field to which my hon. Friend refers.
I hope that the Government will pledge that all the pigmeat bought by any public sector body now meets British welfare standards. It would be a disgrace if public money were being used to support illegally produced meat and to import it into the United Kingdom.
I will now deal with the mounting problem of slaughterhouses. Over the past two years, slaughterhouses in the United Kingdom have been closing at the rate of one every 10 days. All too often, we hear reports of slaughterhouses where there are more veterinary inspectors than there are staff. It is not hard to imagine the frustration of owners, who have to pay more regulators than employees.
As if that burden were not enough, there is now a threat of even higher inspection charges. In a typical small Devonshire abattoir, where 10 units a week are slaughtered, the charges are likely to rise from £62 a week to more than £300 a week. Those extra charges were due to be introduced on 29 March.
On top of those charges, there is also the threat of a further burden, in the form of £19 million of specified risk material removal charges. The regulation of slaughterhouses is rapidly growing out of all proportion to the risks being addressed.

Mr. Owen Paterson: The Meat Hygiene Service is becoming a £100-million-a-year monster, which is apparently out of the democratic control of the Government. A small abattoir in Llanrwst has written to me, stating that its cost per beast is £26, and that it will have to close soon, as its continental competitors' costs are only £3 per beast.

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right to bring that matter to the House's attention. I have heard similar reports from other parts of the United Kingdom, demonstrating very vividly the type of burden that British slaughterhouses are now suffering.
As those businesses are destroyed, so the journeys that farm animals have to travel get longer. While the animals suffer longer journeys, the farmers suffer the higher transport costs caused by the higher fuel taxes introduced by the Labour Government.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Is it not ironic that, in the very week that we are having this debate to draw attention to the industry, farmers in my constituency are having to pay an extra charge? Their charge per animal to deal with specified risk material is increasing from £48 to £60. Why are the Government loading on to farmers those extra charges even in the week that we are debating these issues?

Mr. Yeo: The Government are doing so because they have no concern—they do not care—about the problems that they are creating for those small businesses. As the profits of slaughterhouses are destroyed in the way that my hon. Friend has described, so the prices that those slaughterhouses can afford to pay to farmers for their animals decrease. Will the Minister halt the imposition of


any extra charges on Britain's slaughterhouses until and unless he can show that our slaughterhouses are not bearing a heavier burden than their European counterparts?

Mr. Martyn Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us who introduced the Meat Hygiene Service, and how many abattoirs closed between imposition of the service and two years ago?

Mr. Yeo: The Conservative party did not introduce these additional regulations or levy these additional charges. If a Conservative Government were in power today, they would certainly not introduce extra charges on a struggling industry until we had the information that the Minister should have.
Last November, the Minister of State—who is in the Chamber—said in a written answer:
Information about the level of these charges in other member states is not yet available."—[Official Report, 9 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 105.]
In another written answer, he stated:
We do not have specific information on the standard of meat inspection in other EU countries."—[Official Report, 11 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 248.]
How can the Government contemplate hitting British slaughterhouses with more costs when they do not even know what those costs are elsewhere in Europe? In the five and a half months since those answers were given, what has the Minister done to collect the necessary figures? Will he publish, today, all the data that he has?
In the past two years, the dairy sector, too, has seen a collapse in its income of almost two thirds. The recent trend in dairy prices has been bleak. The sector's prospects have been made worse by the recent CAP reform outcome. Last September, the Minister said that he intended
to liberate our dairy industry from the bureaucracy and unfairness of the quota system".
At the beginning of March 1999, the Minister agreed to a package that preserved that quota system for another four years, freezing British milk quotas until 2003. Even the Prime Minister was unimpressed. On 12 March, The Times said that his spokesman described it as
not satisfactory as far as we are concerned".
For once, No. 10 Downing street got it right.
Britain is not self-sufficient in dairy products. Yet, our dairy farmers are in the absurd position of enjoying some of the best dairy-producing countryside in Europe, but of being prevented by the quota system from meeting even home demand. Not for the first time, the Minister's actions fell sadly short of his words—but worse was to come.
At the end of March, when the Heads of Government re-opened the package, the Prime Minister—to secure his cherished headline about saving the overall British budget rebate—made further disastrous concessions. The proposed increase in the British milk quota was put back until 2006. In contrast, four other countries, including Ireland, received an increase in their quota next year. Over the next seven years, Britain's dairy farmers will pay the price of getting the Prime Minister that headline.
Britain entered the CAP negotiations without sufficiently clear objectives and without enough determination to protect British farmers, consumers or taxpayers. That failure will cost us all dear during the next few years.
A further problem is the weakness of the milk producer organisation. Great anxiety now surrounds the Government's attitude towards the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's recommendations on Milk Marque. Nothing must be done to weaken the position of Milk Marque and other producer groups. Milk Marque's wish to invest in processing facilities must be encouraged, so that the balance between producers and other milk processors and retailers can be redressed to allow dairy farmers an adequate return.

Mr. David Drew: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Conservatives set up Milk Marque in such a way that it was bound to be attacked because the processors were set at odds with it.

Mr. Yeo: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will write to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make that point and say how important it is that, in considering the recommendations, Milk Marque should be supported and strengthened rather than weakened.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Yeo: The Liberals have already cut 20 minutes from the debate by having an unnecessary Division and I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. We cannot afford to allow another leadership bid.
The beef sector has also experienced a disastrous collapse in income. Many beef farmers are incurring losses. Last November, the Minister announced triumphantly a European agreement to the lifting of the worldwide ban on the export of British beef. I saluted him for achieving an outcome that had eluded his predecessor.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I do not think that you did.

Mr. Yeo: I did. It is recorded in Hansard.
Five months later, not a single ounce of British beef has been exported and there is growing dismay at the Government's failure to secure the implementation of that decision. As usual, once the Prime Minister had got the headline that he wanted, little more effort was made. At the beginning of February the European Commission was surprised that its inspectors had not been invited to examine the facilities in this country. Only last week did the inspectors arrive in Britain. When does the Minister think that beef exports will resume? In view of the continuing delay, will he consider extending the calf processing aid scheme beyond the end of July? 
While we wait for progress on that, the Minister has gratuitously knocked confidence in beef by prolonging the domestic ban on beef on the bone. Does he agree with the chief Government scientist, who said that on purely scientific grounds, he did not see much point in banning beef on the bone? Why do the Government not trust the people to decide for themselves whether to eat beef on the bone? Every day that the ban remains, the task of rebuilding confidence in a fine British product is made harder.
Is the Minister also aware that fresh dismay has been caused among beef farmers by the letter sent to them by the British cattle movement service? BCMS inspectors will visit to examine cattle, their ear tags and passports, and the records that farmers have to keep to show that all identification requirements are met. Those visits will be made without warning to the farmer. The first paragraph of the circular emphasises that. The third paragraph says that farmers must co-operate fully, and provide suitable handling facilities and people to assist with the animals. How can farmers keep people standing by to assist with inspections if they are not going to be told when the inspections will take place? That further blow to a demoralised industry shows crass insensitivity and will cause conflict.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: I have drawn to the Minister's attention the particular problems with regard to tagging that will pertain from 1 January in the New Forest, with stock roaming widely. The Minister has replied that he will wait until 1 January and see whether there is a problem before taking it up with our European partners. I have told him that there will be a problem, as have my constituents. Why is he unable to anticipate any difficulty?

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend has put his point so clearly that I hardly need to add anything.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) will deal with the problems of sheep farmers when he winds up, because time has already run on a little.
The livestock industry faces an acute crisis—possibly the worst for a generation. The consequences will hurt all those directly involved, the communities where they live and the environments in which they work. The collapse of prices and incomes threatens the survival of many long-established family farms. Excessive regulation prevents farmers from running their businesses in a common-sense way. Livestock producers are also particularly vulnerable to the consequences of the right to roam—a policy that is misconceived, counter-productive and potentially very costly. The high level of sterling is making imports more attractive to consumers and making exports much harder for producers. It is cutting incomes in the sector.
The Minister has expressed great sympathy for farmers on his travels up and down the country, for which I thank him, but sympathy does not pay the bills. It has to be replaced by action. Farmers around Britain will listen carefully to his speech, but unless he addresses their problems directly, they will be forced to conclude that their worst fears are true: that however much the Minister may want to help them, he is too weak to persuade his Government colleagues to act; that all that he can offer is more fine words; and that the Government have decided cynically that it does not matter what happens to the countryside or to the livestock industry. If that is the case, Labour will stand condemned. Rural communities across Britain will continue to bleed until the return of a Conservative Government.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
recognises the difficulties faced by many in the livestock sector; welcomes the Government's strong commitment to the livestock sector in the United Kingdom; endorses the efforts the Government has made to secure the lifting of the ban on the worldwide export of British beef; approves of the steps which the Government has taken since May 1997 to support the beef and sheep industry via EU agri-monetary compensation; welcomes the initiatives the Government has taken to promote the pig industry; recognises the extra support to the livestock sector, particularly hill and upland producers via substantially increased hill livestock compensatory allowances, announced in November 1998; and welcomes the recently-agreed reshaping of the Common Agricultural Policy as part of the Agenda 2000 negotiations. which seeks to provide the livestock sector with stability and a secure future.
If I am to stand condemned, at least it will not be for breaking the law. I accept that the Opposition have raised important subjects, but their analysis is wrong. Since I became Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I have tried to deal with the undoubted difficulties facing the United Kingdom farming sector in a way that addresses the issues on their own terms, not as a party political battleground. The farmers whom I have met have welcomed that approach, because it offers the possibility of discussion about real issues and working towards real solutions. The desire of the Conservatives to turn this into an overtly party political debate serves only to distort their analysis and leads them to advocate impossible solutions to genuine problems. I want to step back from that approach and use the debate objectively to analyse the problems facing the livestock sector and the steps that we can take, and have taken, to help. The amendment offers a constructive way forward.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I do not want to be party political on the issue. Paul Kenny of Standridge farm in Slaidburn came to see me at my surgery last week. His income has declined dramatically over the past two years and he feels that he can no longer make a living as a dairy farmer. He has written to me and I have passed his letters on to the Minister. He points out that article 39 of the treaty of Rome says that the objective of the common agricultural policy is to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of those engaged in agriculture. What hope can the Minister give Mr. Kenny and other farmers in the Ribble valley that they will be able to make a living out of farming?

Mr. Brown: That is the core point. The main support systems for agriculture throughout the European Union are conditioned by the CAP. We want to be able to provide a future for United Kingdom farmers so that they get a return on the enormous number of hours that they put in and a return on their investment. We must reshape the CAP so that it moves away from an over-reliance on direct livestock subsidies and enables us to put support into rural communities, decoupled from production. We need support systems that will endure the coming pressures. We made a start on that in the latest negotiating round. If the hon. Gentleman wants to criticise me for not having done as much as I wanted, I accept that as fair criticism. I would like to have achieved more, but, as I


have explained in previous debates, four countries took the United Kingdom's reforming view and 11 countries opposed us. We did well to make a start.

Mr. Barry Jones: I shall not criticise my right hon. Friend. Mr. Terrig Morgan of Ffrem Carreg y Llech, Treuddyn, who is a milk farmer; Mr. Idris Roberts of Pwll farm, Treuddyn, who is a beef and sheep meat farmer; and Mr. Clive Swan of Ffrith farm, Treuddyn, who must move out of beef and into organic farming, have real problems. I know that my right hon. Friend seeks to assist them and other farmers. Can he tell me which of his policies will make their problems a little easier?

Mr. Brown: I never lecture people on how to run their businesses. It is the Government's responsibility to set the framework of public sector support to enable businesses to flourish within it. We have to set the support lines rationally. Last week, I announced extra support for the organic sector and it has been widely welcomed.

Mr. Robert Jackson (Wantage): In the spirit of constructive proposals, I am concerned about the role of the banks in relation to the pig industry. Economists talk about the hog cycle. We are now at the bottom of the hog cycle, which is at a very depressed level. The banks are being accommodating to pig producers at the moment, partly because the stock, if it were to be sold, would be valueless. However, it is possible that when the cycle begins to move up, as it will, the banks will foreclose. I invite the Minister to take the initiative and try to persuade the banks not to foreclose. If they do, they will simply accentuate the peak of the hog cycle and make the situation worse.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important point. I have met the heads of the agricultural divisions of most of the main high street banks and most specialist banking institutions. There is one important exception, but I am having a meeting there next week. I find it easier to meet banks individually rather than collectively because discussions are more candid. At each meeting, we have taken a hard look at the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised and I have made my representation that it is important to take account of the whole cycle. As prices rise in some sectors and producers return to profitability, debts will have to be repaid, not least to the suppliers of feedstuffs. I shall continue to make these points. I should say that the response from the banking community has been very constructive.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister address the problem of unfair competition? How can our pig industry compete with cheaper imports which are not subject to our animal welfare regulations? What can he do, especially at a time of European over-production, to create the fair and level playing field that we all seek?

Mr. Brown: Let me set out my analysis of the problems before making some specific comments about the pig sector. I recognise that of all the livestock sectors, the one that is most deeply in crisis and which has been through the most difficult time is the pigmeat sector. I want to do what I legally can to help, and I have some proposals in my speech. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I make my analysis in order.
First, I shall deal with the external factors to which Governments have a duty to respond. We cannot directly shape them. The loss of key world markets and, in particular, the impact for the United Kingdom beef sector of the continuing ban on exports are significant factors in the present difficulties. There are also difficult terms of trade in European Union and world markets, and for some sectors—such as sheep finishers—weather and farming conditions have posed additional difficulties. However, we also have to recognise that the difficulties reflect in part structural surpluses on the market, which have highlighted the effects in some sectors of the normal production cycles. Although those issues are notoriously difficult in the livestock sector, there can be no solution which leaves supply in excess of demand.
The Government have taken a series of steps—I absolutely reject the charge of complacency—within the constraints posed by the common agricultural policy to address the difficulties faced by the livestock sector. Our policy is underpinned by three key principles. First, where short-term financial help has been needed, we have given it, but in a form not likely to stimulate further oversupply; secondly, wherever possible we have taken steps to champion and underpin the undisputed quality of British produce; and, thirdly, where we could reasonably make trading terms easier, we have done so.
We have provided financial help, using the mechanisms at our disposal to offer special aid to the livestock sector in January 1998 and again in November 1998, to a total of £200 million for the beef, sheep, dairy and hill sectors. In individual sectors, we have eased the conditions of trade by removing the obstacles to exporting whole sheep carcases to France, and we have supported and actively pursued the European Commission in its action to underpin the pigmeat market. I shall say more about that in a moment.
We succeeded, where the Opposition failed, in securing political agreement among our European Union partners—first, to the export certified herds scheme for Northern Ireland, and then to the date-based export scheme. This paves the way for the resumption of beef exports from the UK.
We have responded to market developments. In February, recognising the continuing difficult conditions faced in the dairy sector, we extended to the end of July 1999 the calf processing aid scheme. That controversial decision was welcomed by the dairy sector and is worth some £9 million to the industry. In answer to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), I cannot hold out the prospect of it being further extended.
We have acted on an EU decision allowing us to make early payment of some £100 million in EU subsidy to beef producers—a step which I know helped to ease the cash flow difficulties suffered by many. We have championed the quality of UK products, bringing together all the sectors of the food chain with a view to ensuring that UK producers secure the premium that they deserve for their products, and securing valuable agreements from the British Retail Consortium on the labelling of meat and the sourcing of pigmeat.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: With regard to the date-based export scheme, my understanding is that only three out of 12 abattoirs have shown an
interest in becoming dedicated abattoirs and not one of those is in Wales. What steps are the Government taking to ensure the adequacy of the provision in due course?

Mr. Brown: The scheme will of course be driven by market judgments. We have made a good start. The Meat and Livestock Commission inspected three abattoirs last week—one in England, one in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland. I accept that there is not one in Wales, but as exports resume and the export market grows, I am sure that others will become interested, and we stand ready to facilitate their entry into the date-based export scheme. Some in the industry, however, are stepping back and waiting to see how the markets develop before making a decision. It is important for us to make a start and we are proceeding on our timetable. The key hurdle was to achieve the political agreement to make a start and we did that last November.
The December Council of Ministers agreed to reform the agrimonetary regime, which this year is worth some £95 million to UK recipients of CAP livestock direct payments in measures to smooth the transition to the single currency. Over its lifetime, depending on currency movements, it might be worth some £140 million to the industry. The agreement was quite hard to achieve and we should be proud of achieving a 100 per cent. deal for the United Kingdom, as we could hardly do better.
In March, we secured an additional 100,000 head in beef special premium rights for the UK, to apply from 2000 and to remain as long as restrictions on export from the UK beef market persist. The UK beef industry identified that as a priority when we consulted it on the Agenda 2000 proposals. We made it a negotiating priority and achieved it.
I have looked hard at the burden of costs on the industry. I have no quarrel with the hon. Member for South Suffolk for raising the issue. My predecessor ensured that the Government met the costs in 1998–99 of Meat Hygiene Service enforcement of controls on specified risk material from cattle and sheep at a value to the industry of £35 million, and bore the start-up and first-year running costs of the new cattle tracing system—a system underpinning key guarantees on the quality of British products—at a value to the beef and sheep industry of a further £35 million.
We have successfully lobbied the Commission—in recognition of exceptional weakness in the sheep sector—to open tenders for private storage aid in the UK on two occasions during the 1998 marketing year. This provided support to the UK market for lamb to the extent of about £3 million.
We have committed £1.85 million in grant aid over three years to the assured British meat scheme—an initiative to drive through new baseline standards in the red meat sector, from farm to plate. I attach enormous importance to that and I invite the hon. Member for South Suffolk to join me in supporting the farm assured schemes. It is not a political matter. The hon. Member called for clear labelling to enable consumers to identify produce that is UK-sourced. The labelling scheme launched by the Meat and Livestock Commission does

exactly that. This is not a party political point; we should be able to join in support of the MLC's work.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I agree with the Minister on the farm assured scheme. The problem in the livestock industry is that prices are still depressed and farm incomes are low. The Minister will visit the Farmers Union of Wales shortly. The farm management survey shows that some categories of beef and sheep farms in Wales earned only £48 last year. My calculations for some of the upland farms show that earnings are £2.60 an hour, £1 lower than the national minimum wage. What will he tell them about how market prices will improve so that their incomes improve?

Mr. Brown: The one thing that I will not do is make some broad, confident political statement and go away hoping that no one remembers it. These are difficult times. The only way through is for the Government to conduct our affairs with candour and to enter into honest and depoliticised discussions with the industry on how best to get through these difficult times. The future of the sheep sector will involve the reshaping of the hill livestock compensatory allowance, about which I will have more to say later. In any event, an announcement on the consultation will be made tomorrow, giving details of the scheme. I know that that will be of enormous interest to the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
Beyond that, I hope to restructure the support system, within the levers that are open to me following the Berlin summit, to give a clear shape to the support system for sheep producers. Within that, they can shape their businesses accordingly. I have other initiatives on fighting our corner in the marketplace. Since becoming Minister, I have tried to draw retailers, processors and farmers together, and tried to get them to have a constructive interest in each other's economic liability. They must not take an unfair advantage of the spot market—something that has characterised the debate.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The Minister is honest and straightforward enough not for a moment to deny that agriculture in this country has been in rather profound recession. Is it not politically perverse for any Government dealing with any industry in such a recession to be loading charges on to it? The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) was right in saying that these additional charges are at the behest of the Government, who can wave them in, suspend them or take them away. Would it not be sensible at this stage—given the scale of recession in agriculture and the collapse of incomes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) referred—to put all this on hold until the industry has a chance to recover?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman makes his point persuasively, and I intend directly to address the question of charges later in my speech.
I wish to set out what the Government have done to dismiss the charge of complacency. It is reasonable for hon. Members on both sides of the House to make suggestions, which I will take constructively. If I can respond to them, I will. However, it is not fair to say that because things are difficult, the Government must be at fault and must be complacent. Whatever we are, we are not complacent.
I have spent a great deal of time and energy dealing with the different policy strands of the issue. I have been as candid as possible, not just with this House—as I am under an obligation to be—but with the farmers. Those meetings have not always been easy. People are looking for certainty, but I am not always able to provide that. If I could reshape the CAP on my own, it would look different from what emerged after Berlin; it would even look different from what emerged after Brussels.
We have secured an EU regulation that authorises the sale of UK intervention beef to the British armed forces, a point raised by the hon. Member for South Suffolk. The measure enables virtually all the beef supplied to the armed forces in the UK to be British. The same is true of fresh pork. I am doing what I can to persuade other public authorities to buy British, but they are under constraints in exactly the same way as the private sector in terms of competitive tendering and value for money. These constraints were not put on them by this Government.
We have moved to implement the EU beef labelling scheme, which requires retailers to prove their claims about the source of British beef. This enables consumers easily to identify and purchase British beef—a wise buy, as it is among the safest in the world.
Tomorrow, I will be announcing a further step in the major consultation which I launched in January to capture the industry's views on Agenda 2000. That consultation was widely welcomed by the industry as a new and valuable departure and one which, for our part, helped to shape our negotiating position in Brussels to good effect. Following Berlin, there will be further consultations on the three areas where there is discretion for me.
The charge in the Opposition motion is that Labour is not the party of the countryside. The Government are fully committed to ensuring that those who live in rural communities thrive. We have launched, with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, a comprehensive consultation on the elements for a rural White Paper. It covers the full range of activities and issues that are key to rural areas, including those directly related to agriculture.
In the many open meetings that I have attended in rural areas on the White Paper, the initiative has been well received. The discussions have covered issues such as public transport, social housing, the planning regime for village communities and, above all, the employment base of rural communities and small villages. What has been said overwhelmingly is that those who live in villages want them to be working communities with a balance of age ranges and employment opportunities.
There has been great interest in the potential of the rural development pillar—a new pillar of the European Union's Agenda 2000 package. I hope that that can be shaped by the UK Government. It is one of the issues that will be involved in the consultation that I am launching tomorrow to help achieve the rural objectives.

Mr. Yeo: The Minister referred to the consultation document on the White Paper. How many references are there to agriculture on the first one-page summary of that consultation document?

Mr. Brown: The purpose of the White Paper is to stimulate discussion across all of the areas confronting a rural community. Its value cannot be quantified by

judging how many times planning is mentioned and how many times agriculture is mentioned. It is not that sort of exercise. We are trying to take an overarching approach, drawing all the threads in the policy debate together. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Suffolk means well, but I caution him against trying to quantify the matter in that simplistic and literal way. It does not help to inform the debate. There is no doubt that the economies of rural communities are shaped, at least in part, by the functioning of agriculture. We do not need to persuade each other of the importance of that.
The motion condemns the Government's response to the deepening crisis in pig farming. I have acknowledged that the sector is in crisis, and I am under no illusions about the difficulties. The slight improvement in the market recently does not mean that the problems are over.
There are three main factors behind the market weakness: first, the operation of the normal economic cycles, which are a feature of the pig sector in the UK and the EU; secondly, the degree of over-optimism two years ago among producers about the likely extent of demand, either domestically or for export; and, thirdly, against this background, UK pig producers have been hard hit by the loss of key overseas markets and the re-emergence of some producers—particularly in the Netherlands—which had previously been out of the European market because they had been the victims of classical swine fever.
In short, the market has been severely affected by over-supply, and the sole long-term solution lies with bringing supply and demand into better balance. I reject the charge of complacency. Since becoming Minister, I have worked with the industry to find ways in which it can iron out the sharper extremes of the variations in market returns, which are a feature of the notoriously volatile economic cycles which affect the sector.
We have identified solutions in several areas. First, we can maximise the use of EU instruments available to us to smooth the markets. We have successfully urged the European Commission to make judicious use of export refunds and aids to private storage to provide a boost for the market. As recently as 15 February, the rates of export refunds on certain processed pigmeat products exported to Russia were increased by up to 80 per cent., helping commercial exports to remain at buoyant levels.
I have worked hard with all parts of the food chain to secure for the UK's domestic industry the premium that it deserves for the high welfare standards that it observes. It is unfair for the hon. Member for South Suffolk to try to unpick the agreement that I made with the British Retail Consortium at Christmas. The industry is a producer of high quality pigmeat. It does not use meat and bone-meal feed and has high animal welfare and ethical standards. We should boast about that.

Mr. Christopher Gill: The Minister will be aware of a proposition that was put to his Ministry some time ago now to see whether there was some way in which the offal from pigs could be processed in dedicated plants so that that material could be given a value and perhaps sold to the poultry industry. The whole industry was united in supporting that idea and it would have


helped the economics of the industry. The idea seems to have died a death. Can the Minister tell us where it has gone?

Mr. Brown: The idea has not died a death. I am interested in it and gave the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I would see whether it could be adopted. My Department is considering with the Meat and Livestock Commission whether it can put together a complete industry case that deals with the difficult question of cross-contamination to submit to the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, to obtain its views on whether the idea is feasible to help the pig sector for which BSE is not a direct issue. The short answer to his point is that we are considering preparing a case, which would have to go before SEAC and advice would then be given to Ministers. I cannot undermine the public protection measures, so the core of the submission will be the industry's description of how the dangers of cross-contamination can be met with 100 per cent. safety. The idea is worthy of further examination. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the part he has played in the debates about a sector that is experiencing difficult times.
I have worked with the Meat and Livestock Commission and the National Farmers Union to secure recognition for their assurance schemes. I have taken part in a series of events with the chairman of the MLC, Don Curry, and others to promote the pig mark and other initiatives, and I say that my policy is having some success. UK pork prices are some 20 per cent. above the EU average, 25 per cent. higher than the Danish price and 40 per cent. higher than the Dutch price. That in part reflects the work that my Ministry and the MLC have put into obtaining that UK premium in the marketplace. I urge hon. Members to get behind me and the MLC and—instead of complaining and criticising—to win for the industry the premium that it should be able to command. That means buying UK. It should not be a political question, because we should all have the same objective.
For the future, I believe that the issue of the recognition of welfare standards will need to be considered in the wider context of the forthcoming negotiations when the World Trade Organisation discusses agricultural trade. We will have to insist that the issue is taken into account. I note the call that we should ban imports of products from third countries if we believe that they do not meet the standards that our producers observe. That is an important issue and the Commissioner will report to the Council of Ministers on one aspect of it in June. The way forward lies in devising a formula that observes international obligations and does not fuel pure protectionism under the guise of concern about health and welfare standards. There is no protectionist solution to the problem.
I am often asked about the relative production costs for UK producers compared with their European Union counterparts. The MLC, a statutory body funded by the industry, is well placed to advise on those issues. It recently completed a body of work on the topic and I offer the following commitment to the House. I intend to discuss that work with the MLC and to involve the industry in the discussions.

Mr. Robert Walter: What is the point of banning growth promoters and antibiotics on public

health grounds in this country if we then permit imports of meat in which those growth promoters and antibiotics have been used?

Mr. Brown: Four veterinary interventions have been banned by the EU and there are alternatives that are not used in human medicines. The purpose of the ban was to prevent the consumption by EU citizens of quantities of those medicines. The argument is that such consumption is not prevented because of the imports. However, the levels consumed are dramatically reduced if EU produce does not include the promoters. It is not a public health issue but it is a trade issue. We have asked Commissioner Fischler to report to the Council of Ministers' June meeting on that trade point. It is a fair point for the hon. Gentleman to raise and, indeed, I raised it myself when I spoke for our country at the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: If there is no protectionist solution against the import of lower welfare standard products, could there be a labelling solution to let the consumers choose?

Mr. Brown: All Ministers are under pressure on labelling schemes. I urge consumers to look for the assured British pork label, because they can then buy UK pork, ham or bacon reared to ethical standards and which has not been fed on meat and bone-meal feed. That is the product to choose in the supermarket, and we should tell that to our constituents and to retailers. Although most retailers are helping with the labelling scheme, there are exceptions. I shall talk to those retailers and urge them to take part in the scheme.

Mr. Drew: It appears that the Danes and the Dutch are investing heavily in all manner of means to raise their environmental and welfare standards to compete with the British.

Mr. Brown: I am not in the least bit surprised, because it is clear that is the route to achieving a premium in the marketplace. The work that the Ministry and the MLC have done seems to have achieved that, but I accept that it is fragile. The crisis is not yet over and I would be grateful for any help from hon. Members, as well as from my hon. Friends.

Mr. Luff: The right hon. Gentleman is a fair man and he will probably not be surprised that I am disappointed that he has made no reference so far to the severe criticisms by the Select Committee on Agriculture of the response by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Committee's report on the pig industry. I am especially disappointed that he has made no reference to level playing field issues, which are very important. In an earlier intervention, I mentioned the problem of French subsidies for the pig industry, which the Minister appeared to think were not happening. What steps is he taking to reassure himself that the heavily reported subsidies being paid by the French Government to the French pig industry are not happening and further disadvantaging the UK pig industry?

Mr. Brown: I am trying to gather information through the usual route of the agricultural attaches at the embassy in Paris. If we find any evidence of illegal subsidies,


we will protest at once to the Commission. If the hon. gentleman has any evidence to supply—perhaps a description of the schemes that he believes are under way—I will examine it carefully. Nobody should doubt that it is the UK's view that no extra subsidies should be paid by individual nation states to try to get their industries through a crisis, to the disbenefit of other nations' pig industries. That would not be fair in what is supposed to be a single market. There should be no extra intervention by individual nation states.
I welcomed the good and thorough report of the Select Committee on Agriculture. Naturally, I do not accept its criticisms, particularly the charges of complacency directed at my Ministry. I do not accept that I am responsible to Parliament for the work of the Meat and Livestock Commission. The point is technical, but it is a non-governmental body. I have departmental responsibility for the area in which it works, but it would not wish me to give it instructions or tell Parliament what I thought it should do. The MLC is an industry group, funded by a levy from producers, not from the taxpayer.

Mr. Luff: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the Minister. When we reported on floods and coastal defence, we had a helpful response from the Environment Agency. The Meat and Livestock Commission should have provided a response to our report, and the Ministry should have made sure that such a response was forthcoming. He was seriously remiss in not ensuring that that happened.

Mr. Brown: I do not wish to disagree across the Floor of the House with the Chairman of the Select Committee. I seek a constructive working relationship with the Committee, and many of the points raised in its report are points of detail, not principle. In fact, we all share the point of principle: we all want to get the industry through difficult times caused, at least in part, by factors beyond the direct control of the UK Government. There is an EU-wide surplus, and that is difficult to deal with. I should like Ministers to sit down with members of the Select Committee to work through the criticisms to try to find common ground and to set out why we do not agree in some areas.
We are on target towards the lifting of the beef ban. We are on timetable.

Mr. Yeo: indicated dissent.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman laughs. I should have thought that he should be a little more restrained, given the way in which the problem came about in the first place. It has cost our country £4.6 billion, and 39 of our citizens have died.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Forty.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend tells me the number is now 40. I am sorry to hear that, but there will be more to come. BSE is a serious matter.
That is the background to consideration within the European Union. Ministers from other countries quite naturally want to protect their citizens and to be satisfied that we are doing all we should to protect ours.

Their examinations have been incredibly rigorous, and it is a tribute to those working in public protection that we are passing those examinations.

Mr. Gill: Does the Minister recognise that many problems associated with BSE arose because his party, when in opposition, was constantly telling the then Government to prove that beef was safe? The Minister knows that no scientist in the world worth his salt will give such an assurance. His party undermined the industry time after time when it was in opposition.

Mr. Brown: No, no, no. I cannot accept that. The hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), actually takes the opposite position, saying that beef is safe, whether it is or is not. That is the approach that the hon. Gentleman's party has adopted on the beef on the bone ban. If the chief medical officer says that there is a risk, no matter how small, I must accept what he says. There is no point in asking for the CMO's professional advice, then rejecting it because I want to assert a political view.
Anyone who pauses for a moment will realise what impact such action would have on the marketplace. It would be disastrous. Confidence in our public safety regime is of paramount importance to the health of the domestic beef market. People have confidence in the current public protection measures, and that confidence is justified. I will do nothing to jeopardise it, either on grounds of public health or on grounds of market confidence.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Brown: I ought to get on because I am conscious that others wish to speak. I have been generous in giving way and should perhaps move on.
I have been asked about Milk Marque. The motion has something to say about it, but I am afraid that is more than I can do. I have received representations from producer organisations, and I take them very seriously. However, the report rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who is also considering representations, and it would be quite improper of me to speculate about it.
I hope that the House will forgive me for moving on over the range of matters I have been asked about.

Mr. Paterson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Brown: I watched on television in my Department as the hon. Gentleman spoke in the earlier road haulage debate, so I should be only too happy to give way to him.

Mr. Paterson: The Minister is most generous, so I shall be brief. The Meat Hygiene Service appears to be out of control. Because it is self-regulating, the more it regulates, the more people it can employ and the more income it can demand from the abattoir industry. What measures will the Minister take to bring the service back under control and to reduce the burden on UK abattoirs?

Mr. Brown: I am satisfied that control of that next steps agency is perfectly proper. Indeed, I pay tribute to


the senior management who have, uniquely, pulled it together from a local authority base to work as a unified body, which was not easy.
The hon. Gentleman asked about costs: I have touched on regulatory burdens on the industry, and I recognise deep concerns about the prospect of increased charges for veterinary inspections in abattoirs. Those costs would arise from a possible increase in meat hygiene inspection costs and from the proposal to pass to the industry charges for the enforcement of the rules requiring removal of specified risk material for cattle and sheep. I have listened carefully to all that the industry has said on that point, and to the concern that increases of the scale proposed would cause severe difficulties for many abattoirs and for the primary producers who might have to share the burden.
The Government remain of the view that it is, in principle, right to recover those costs from the industry. Like other member states, we are obliged by EU legislation to recover the costs of meat hygiene inspections, including the veterinary element. In dealing with those charges, we do not intend to put smaller operations—particularly those that specialise in high-quality product—out of business.
I am therefore announcing today a complete deferral for this financial year of specified risk material inspection costs, amounting to £20 million. For this year, the burden will be borne by the Government, not passed on to the industry.
I have a further announcement: the Government will undertake a further close examination of the dynamics of the slaughtering sector, of the impact of all the charges on abattoirs and on producers. We shall also examine European Union legislation and the way in which inspections are carried out to ensure that when charges are set, the costs are as low as possible, consistent with public safety, and with honouring our obligations under EU law. My aim is that the study should be completed quickly, and I intend to take a close interest in its conclusions.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I am extremely grateful for the announcement made by my right hon. Friend. It will be warmly welcomed by small slaughter operators throughout the country—not least by my local operator, John Coles, and butchers in Exeter, including my own, whom he provides with excellent meat from Piper's farm. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the impact assessment that he has announced will examine the particular difficulties faced by small craft operators and the special role that they play in terms of quality and local, transparent production and marketing of high-quality food?

Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the announcement. It is as much as I can do during the next financial year. I am constrained by law from doing more. I will ensure that all the points that he has made and the concerns to which he has alluded are put before the review. I take that review seriously and intend to take a close personal interest in it.
I conclude by considering the challenges that the sector will face during the next few years—that is at the heart of the debate. We face a world in which transport

developments are bringing markets and suppliers closer together, and developing consumer tastes are widening potential product ranges and ensuring that people understand more than ever about the food that they eat. It is a world in which the pressures—from the formal procedures of the World Trade Organisation and from commercial practices—to liberalise markets and to compete freely and keenly will become ever stronger. It is a world in which the EU' s ambitions for enlargement offer the prospects of enormous change, forcing us to rethink both the basis of EU agricultural support, and to meet the challenge of a larger pool of consumers keen to enter EU markets. Against that background, UK agriculture faces enormous changes and challenges—challenges that have already started to be met through the reshaping of agricultural policy contained in Agenda 2000 and through the options open to the UK to implement that change.
My task, as I hope I have set out this evening, is to help UK agriculture face those issues and for Government and industry—from producers to processors and retailers—to work co-operatively for enduring solutions. I ask the House to contrast the Government's constructive approach with the "impossibilist" policies of the Opposition, and to support the Government's amendment.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: My contribution will be brief; time is getting on and other Members want to speak.
I begin by responding to the important and significant statement made by the Minister in the final part of his speech. Liberal Democrats give that statement a warm welcome. It is a correct decision which will help and bolster the section of the industry that includes abattoirs and primary producers. They are already suffering and, without being churlish, I echo the comment, "Too late," made from the Opposition Benches while the Minister was speaking. However, as a result of his statement, some small-scale abattoirs—of the sort with which all Members have constituency or regional contacts—which are in financial difficulty may now be able to claw themselves out of that difficulty over a period.
Having made the decision, I hope that in his discussions with banks, the Minister will point out that the responsibility for taking a lenient, indulgent and supportive attitude lies with the banks, because what might seem like a closure situation next week may not be one in 12 months' time. The bankers must have as steady a nerve as those operating the facilities. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will stress that point to the bankers and, with that caveat, I welcome what he said about the deferral for one year.
In relation to right hon. Gentleman's assessment, I make one suggestion. With all due respect, as he has only just made the statement, there has obviously been no opportunity to discuss the matter with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). However, in relation to the Food Standards Agency, surely we have broken new ground in the workings of the House, because a Select Committee is considering what is proposed in advance of legislation. That is a healthy and sensible development.
I do not doubt that the Chairman of the Select Committee and his colleagues already have a full in-tray. However, I wonder whether the assessment to which the


Minister referred—the nature of the abattoir industry and its relationship to other parts of the food cycle, and so on—might not be better carried out by the Select Committee. We do not necessarily want only a Government-sponsored and controlled assessment and consultation process; we might want an all-party consultation process driven by the Chairman of the Select Committee, who would then report to the Government in due course. We cannot make decisions about that tonight; the matter is well beyond the remit—[Interruption.] Of course, it is up to the Committee, but it is also up to the Government to give it a fair wind, if they are so minded. I hope that the matter will be considered after tonight's statement; it would be a useful way forward.
Time is passing and I intend being brief. I turn to the wider issue of the reform of the common agricultural policy—and all that. The Minister was characteristically straightforward when he said that the outcome of the Agriculture Council—never mind the outcome at Berlin—was not as he would have wanted. I doubt whether it was what most Members of the House would have wanted.
The big political worry is that the outcome of those discussions can be regarded only as an interim settlement, and that the issue will have be revisited yet again if the European Union is to remain true to the broader political agenda of enlargement. The EU must be aware that there is no chance of practical enlargement into central and eastern Europe, even under the modified proposals agreed after the Berlin summit. The CAP will have to be reopened if Europe is to achieve any realisation of its broader ambition—a legitimate ambition, which, like all parties, we strongly support—to widen the frontiers of Europe and the membership of the EU itself.
Domestically, the Minister spoke of his wish for the establishment of more support systems for rural development in the wider sense, and in that respect the settlement achieved at the Agriculture Council and the Berlin summit is a great disappointment. We know that more finance is potentially available for investment in rural development projects and programmes, agrienvironment schemes, conservation, environmentally skewed schemes and so on; unfortunately, we are not to have access to those funds because of the unsatisfactory nature of the financial arrangements arrived at in the recent discussions. I hope that the Minister will continue to exert pressure on that subject. In particular, I hope that he will urge the Chancellor, who is the key person in this respect, to continue to press his opposite numbers at European level, because the current arrangements, which were railroaded through by the French late at night, are far from satisfactory and go against what Europe itself has said that it wants to achieve.
If we want greater emphasis to be placed on the environment, conservation and husbandry of the countryside, the only way to deliver that is to have people in the countryside who understand it, care for it and have experience of it. In most cases, given the structure of UK farming, that means maintaining the basic building block—the UK family farm. However, until additional money becomes available for that sort of rural investment, those family farms will either continue to amalgamate at the current rate or go out of business completely. Either way, we end up with a more denuded countryside, which is precisely the opposite of what Europe says it wants to achieve.
That reflects the profoundly unsatisfactory state in which the discussions of the CAP were left. Although those discussions cause uncertainty in the agricultural community in this country, as in every other EU member state, we have to be honest with our farming sector and say that Pandora's box will have to be reopened sooner rather than later, if the broader aims of European enlargement and more enlightened and more economically deliverable conservation of the UK environment and countryside are to be achieved.
I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said—it would be hard not to agree with him, because, from our experience of listening to rural Britain, we know that he was telling us the facts. However, the Conservatives' motion contains a hint that all the problems began at the stroke of midnight on 2 May 1997. They did not. The party that was continuously in office for the previous 18 years cannot tell us with any more persuasiveness than they bring to health matters that the set of rural policy levers that are thrown one year have an immediate impact the next. Both health policy and rural policy have longevity—they roll on and on. Therefore, much as I agree with many of the hon. Gentleman's points, the great weakness of the Conservatives' case is that history did not begin only two years ago; it dates back much further than that, and their case is weakened by their unwillingness to acknowledge that.
I have two further points to make in respect of Europe. The crisis in the pig industry has already been described, so I shall not go over that again. The Government must be extremely proactive about the labelling issue. The European labelling directive is rather like Billy Bunter's postal order: it is in the post, but we will believe it when we see it. We will wait a very long time if we wait for Europe. Can the Government take some primary legislative initiative here and now, rather than waiting for Godot in Brussels to deliver something in terms of labelling?

Mr. Nick Brown: As to pig products, the crucial point is the Meat and Livestock Commission's farm-assured labels. That system is in place now and does not require legislation. As political advocates, we must simply get behind the system and encourage people to consume products where they see those labels. It is as straightforward as that.

Mr. Kennedy: Politics is a mixture of carrot and stick. I was at the launch when the Minister correctly gave his and the Government's full support to the MLC initiative. Encouragement, advocacy, persuasion and advertising have their place, but a degree of stick may also be required to convince some of the characters with whom we deal in this business. I am not sure that a degree of legislative initiative on the Government's part would be misplaced. They might not have to deliver such legislation: the threat might concentrate several minds that need to be focused in a commercial sense.
Allied to that, we have heard talk of a level playing field in Europe. That is undoubtedly a legitimate point. However, I always feel that, although there is a level playing field—whether it is in the oil industry in my
constituency or in agriculture in the context of this debate—it seems to have better drainage in some parts of Europe compared with others.

Mr. Livsey: That's a good one.

Mr. Kennedy: If my hon. Friend uses it, he must let me know and I will send him the invoice.
If there is legitimate evidence—it is mightily difficult to find in every case—we should pursue the guilty party hard.
The dog that does not bark in terms of the Conservative motion tonight is economic and monetary union. We know that the strength of the pound is a real problem. There is no doubt about that. We know also that markets in the far east, Russia and elsewhere have collapsed, particularly for the pig industry, and that various sectors of agriculture are in a state of over-supply.
However, if we talk not just to farming industry leaders but to local farmers, we find a growing realisation among a pretty canny, sceptical section of the population that Britain would be better off in, or committed to, economic and monetary union, rather than completely hostile to and distanced from it. As the Government well know, the Liberal Democrats would like them to be more enthusiastic and unambiguous about EMU as a political principle as well as a policy process.
I do not wish to wade into the well-advertised public grief of the Conservatives in this area, but it is quite astonishing that their motion in this agriculture debate does not address, in one way or the other, the issue of monetary union, its impact on United Kingdom agriculture and our position relative to the rest of the European Union. For obvious reasons, the silence from the Conservatives tonight is breathtaking.

Mr. Gill: rose—

Mr. Kennedy: Of course I will give way. I enjoyed my recent visit to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, when I lunched with my great friend Sir Julian Critchley. I could never accuse the hon. Gentleman of not being consistent when it comes to EMU.

Mr. Gill: I have never doubted the hon. Gentleman's political credentials. The problem with the pound is not that it is strong—the hon. Gentleman need only consider the parity that it enjoys with the United States dollar—but that other European countries have driven down their currencies in an attempt to hit the convergence criteria. That is the reality of the situation, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

Mr. Kennedy: Although I am aware that we are getting into a debate, largely at my behest, about EMU, rather than the subject that we should be discussing, I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The inherent early weakness in the euro is largely due to the fact that sterling has not joined it. If sterling had been one of the building blocks or if the UK had been committed to the euro, with an appropriate entry date following a referendum, confidence in the euro would be stronger than

it is in these initial stages. It is a question of whether the glass is half-empty or half-full, but I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's general view on that issue.
Many other issues are detailed in the motion, but I shall deal with only two or three. I shall make a constructive suggestion, which I have raised with the Government before. Many hon. Members from all parties find that many of our farmers are coming to us with small-scale problems as well as the broader issues that they face. Action to solve those smaller problems is within the Government's remit and, I hope, the remit of the devolutionary settlement in Wales and Scotland.
Those problems include integrated control and administration system forms, the clawbacks that are imposed from time to time and the sometimes rather draconian interpretation of rules and regulations by regional officers. In my experience at a local level, nine times out of 10, a bit of common sense and good will would iron out the problem. That common sense is not being applied sufficiently well.
In almost every other sector of public life, whatever class of citizen is involved, there is some provision for an independent right of appeal. If one is not happy with the Child Support Agency or the Benefits Agency, one can go to an independent arbitrator or assessor. It is extraordinary that there is nothing of that sort for farmers. All they can do is write to their Member of Parliament. What do we do? We write to the Minister. The Minister's office passes the letter on to the district office that made the decision or offered the advice. In most cases, that office sends a letter back to the Minister saying, "Yes, we were right." The Minister writes back to the MP saying, "All is well. Sorry that I can't help."
Farmers should have the right to go through an independent arbitration mechanism in cases where decisions are made or advice given. A sum of £2,000 or £3,000 may not be a lot of money, but, given the collapse in incomes that farmers are experiencing, it is the difference between being viable or going bust. We strongly support such a mechanism, and I want the Government to take that on board.

Mr. Colin Breed: The Minister will know that I have written to him two or three times in recent months about similar cases. One involved a farmer who had his fields re-measured after four or five years. He found that there were modest changes—some fields were a little larger and some were a little smaller, but by less than a hectare in most cases. There was no suggestion—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be making an intervention, not telling a tale.

Mr. Breed: Farmers have tried to demonstrate that they are not form-fillers. They have made some odd mistakes, but it is inequitable that they can be penalised for modest over-claims that were made years before but can go back only one year when they have under-claimed.

Mr. Kennedy: I agree with my hon. Friend's point and, to paraphrase you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the tale that he has told.

Mr. Nick Brown: I was slightly stunned by the hon. Gentleman's description of the way in which we respond


to letters from hon. Members. I do not merely ask the regional office to justify its action, and then sling the answer back to the hon. Member. I have taken a good look at some of the hard cases brought to my attention by hon. Members. The problem is not that a kind-hearted person would not exercise discretion, but that we have no discretion. The rules of European Union schemes are incredibly rigid, to avoid abuse not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the EU. If we had discretion, we would use it, but we do not.

Mr. Kennedy: I do not doubt the Minister's account, as he sees it. Having dealt, like many of my colleagues, with a succession of Agriculture Ministers of both political parties over the years, I can only reflect on the fact that rigidity appears to have taken on a new realism under this Administration in terms of their interpretation of some of the schemes. Without invoking the principle of subsidiarity, I wonder whether there is not a little more that can creatively be done to advise people in advance, before the mistake is logged and entered, so that the clawback or the reference backwards does not have to be invoked. [Interruption.] I hear the bell tolling; I shall take that as my cue to conclude.
I conclude by saying that I hope that we get a decision on Milk Marque from the Department of Trade and Industry, sooner rather than later. I hope that the decision will maintain Milk Marque's position in the processing sector. We do not want it to be dismantled or dismembered on a regional basis, as that would be catastrophic for various reasons. I speak for my colleagues when I say that, as I hope that I do on the many other issues on which we have touched this evening—but one never knows in the Liberal Democrats. Having said that, through gritted teeth we shall probably have to vote for the Conservative motion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Front-Bench exchanges have taken 92 minutes, and there are to be winding-up speeches. If hon. Members confined themselves to speeches of no longer than five minutes, it would be possible to have a reasonable spread of Back-Bench contributions.

Mr. David Drew: I shall take careful note of your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This is obviously well-travelled terrain. Given the time constraints, it is difficult to cover a motion of such length in much detail. However, it is useful to put on record the fact that Labour Members who live in rural areas genuinely understand the problems that farmers are experiencing. Many of us have farmers as friends, and we know that they are still facing dire problems in terms of their incomes. Small farmers in particular are struggling to make ends meet. I feel particularly for the tenant farmers in my area—those on the county farm estates which could be described as the poorer end of farming, hill farms notwithstanding.
There is so much that could and should be said, but we cannot proceed without mentioning bovine spongiform encephalopathy, a problem that is writ large. I know that

the Opposition try to forget or to lay the blame elsewhere, as they tried to do today, but it is their responsibility, and we shall keep reminding them of that fact.
One point that is worth bearing in mind, and which was raised today at Prime Minister's questions by an Opposition Member, is the allegation that we are going slow in trying to get our beef exported to Europe. I remind the Opposition that the ban on tallow was removed while they were in office, yet we have still to see tallow back on the export markets. That says something about the European Union as well as about our efforts, but let us not fool ourselves into thinking that it is easy to regain export markets. The inspection regime is laborious—perhaps too laborious—and we must be realistic about how long it will take us to put it in place.
Mention has been made of bovine tuberculosis. We could spend the rest of the debate talking about its implications. Coming as it does on the back of BSE, it has been an enormous psychological downer for many farmers—admittedly, it affects another part of the agricultural sector, but we cannot describe its implications as anything other than very sad. In Gloucestershire alone, something like 130 herds have been affected, which in turn has an enormous impact on dairying. We have to be realistic in dealing with that problem.
I make no apology for highlighting one part of the Opposition's motion. Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry can say nothing and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was likewise circumspect, I can comment on Milk Marque. I feel that I can speak with some expertise and objectivity, having met representatives of Milk Marque regularly. Also, there is a Dairy Crest factory a mile away from where I live, so I know only too well about the conflicts and confrontation that have gone on.
We have been left with a dreadful mess. Anyone who pretends otherwise is being less than candid. We are faced with the 90 per cent. clearance of milk supply. There was only one way that the entire operation could go. The processors would not buy, thereby forcing down the price and leading to conflict between farmers. We have ended up with an unholy mess which I hope my right hon. Friend will sort out, but it will not be easy.
The Opposition motion calls for Milk Marque to be given the right to process. That makes me smile, as the Conservatives did not give it that right when they set up Milk Marque. Only recently has Milk Marque been able to take over Aeron Valley and subsequently plants in Somerset and Cornwall, which has allowed the processing capacity to open up. That has led to much more vicious conflict with the dairy processors. I hope that the problems can be resolved. They are not of our making; we inherited them.
We could talk about milk quotas and the legacy of the previous Administration. We must try our best to solve those problems. On other subjects, I am always surprised at the demand for caution with regard to genetically modified organisms. I heartily support that position, as hon. Members know. However, when it comes to beef on the bone, many people are prepared to set aside professional advice and medical opinion. That contrast should be emphasised more strongly.
We could talk in considerable detail about reform of the common agricultural policy. A start has been made, but no one pretends that that is the end of the story or that


we have got everything that we wanted. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, we are part of a smaller group of reformers, as opposed to those who pretended that they wanted reform but in reality wanted to keep the same structures in place. That is unacceptable and we must continue to oppose it. We must do so as a nation, not in party political terms.
On the wider rural debate that is mentioned in the motion, it is interesting to note that the Conservative party calls itself the party of the countryside, yet there are so many Labour Members who represent rural communities.
We are pleased with the Green Paper that the Government have issued, which will lead later in the year to the White Paper. We encourage consultation so that there is proper discourse on the future of rural Britain. I shall be holding such a discussion on Monday with my rural community council, involving not just the agricultural community but the entire rural community, to make sure that I can represent the community's point of view. All hon. Members would be well advised to do the same.
It is easy to try to score cheap political points, but we know the depth of the crisis and we know how many people are undergoing genuine travails. Agriculture must undergo change. Many of us in the House feel that there has been too much belief in the independence and isolationism of farmers, and not enough collaboration. We need to promote marketing schemes and consider ideas such as farmers markets, which are beginning to grow throughout the country. They provide a win-win situation, inasmuch as they can reduce transport costs and result in high-quality produce. That is what the consumer wants, and that is what the consumer is prepared to pay for.

Mr. David Curry: The crisis may be cyclical, but from the perspective of the uplands, it seems permanently installed. One might say, "Well, so what? Other jobs come along; agriculture always changes; there is always an exodus from agriculture", but I am afraid that it is different in the uplands. There are not an easy recourse, a fail-safe mechanism, a new industry or any sunrise jobs there. Investment is difficult; it does not flow readily. The region is remote and there is no availability of sites. There is poor transport, and there are poor levels of skills and—certainly in North Yorkshire—national park constraints. We understand the designation of areas of natural beauty, but they none the less make investment more difficult.
The average gross domestic product per capita in North Yorkshire is 79.5 per cent. of the European average. The area has the lowest wage rates in the region. In the uplands, the figure is 63 per cent.—so low that, if it were Liverpool, it would meet objective 1 criteria for European Union assistance. Agriculture provides 18 per cent. of employment in the North Yorkshire uplands and 35 per cent. in the two national parks. Subsidy accounts for the entire net farm income. Tourism adds perhaps 30 per cent., but both agriculture and tourism—and, I might add, care of the elderly, which is the unseen industry in much of the countryside—are low-wage, cyclical and seasonal. Off-farm income is absolutely crucial.
Half the farmers are more than 50 years old, half in the less-favoured areas have no family successor and two thirds have no formal qualifications. What is more,

demography is against the dales; the population is changing. There are fewer people under 40 years old and, relatively speaking, more elderly people in the dales. So we have a sparse and ageing population. In addition, a quarter of them have no access to a private car. What I have said of the Yorkshire dales would be true of uplands across the United Kingdom.
That is the context of the agricultural crisis. We are faced in the uplands not just with a crisis industry but a crisis of society. One might say, "So what? Ways of life change, people have no right to be able to preserve a way of life indefinitely." But let us remember the fragility and vulnerability of the environment that we keep saying we want to save. On the 50th anniversary of the national parks, perhaps the Minister will remember, when he looks at his White Paper and his reviews, that those national parks were set up to try to maintain something very precious to the nation. That very preciousness is under threat at the moment.
There is action that the Government can take; I want to try to be constructive. First, objective 5b areas will be replaced by objective 2 status and its rural strand. The Government have the task of designating the populations which will fall within that. I hope that they will designate the whole of the population that is currently covered by the 5b areas of the Yorkshire uplands as objective 2 rural strand status, so that we may secure a stream of support for that important rural development.
Secondly, I hope that the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning will ensure that the regional development agencies recognise the genuine needs of the countryside in their programmes, and not the sometimes more evident needs of the inner city, which I would not want to deny. Thirdly, in reviewing long-term local government funding, will the Government take into account the needs of sparse and unskilled populations?
Although the situation in agriculture is desperate, there are things that the Government can do to help. There is no point in pretending that the Berlin agreement was anything other than a disaster. The Minister made an heroic effort in negotiating the deal, which he might not have thought was as good as he wanted, but which none the less just about held together. That has been undermined. It is ridiculous to say that it is a starting point for World Trade Organisation talks or enlargement. That is simply not sustainable.
Milk quotas have plunged into long-term uncertainty. I hope that the purdah attendant on local, regional and European elections will not mean that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has absolutely nothing to say about the milk issue for the foreseeable future. That would pile another uncertainty on top of an existing one. Farmers are getting 18p or 19p a litre and the net returns per cow are about £40 at the moment. That is simply not a sustainable livelihood.
Under the Berlin agreement, we have the new national envelopes. We need to know, as soon as possible, how they will be allocated and, in particular, how that will play within the new regional framework that is developing in the United Kingdom. The shift from headage payments to area payments is a complex business, but the Minister will want to make sure that there is no major disruption in the pattern of that support and that no one has a cliff edge off which they have to fall.
The importance of the beef export trade has been emphasised and we must start to think about how we move beyond the 30-month scheme with the measures that are in place and the agrimonetary compensation to which the Minister has referred. People in the pig industry are losing money. The road to bankruptcy used to be gambling, women or drink, but there is now a short-cut to it—raising pigs.
The Minister said something very important—[Interruption.] I should like him to pay attention to the point that I want to make. He said that the world trade round should take welfare standards into account and I want to be sure that that is Government policy, because it is an important statement. If welfare standards—as well as environmental standards and labour market conditions—were taken into account, the upcoming world trade round would be wholly different from previous ones. To what extent do the Government believe that the chemistry for this trade round is different from that which we have traditionally encountered?
I welcome the Minister's review of the various burdens on industry and I hope that he will conclude it rapidly. I will not, therefore, add my name to the telephone directory of my constituents who have specific complaints on that issue—they have been recited—but I ask him to consider one matter: the groundwater directive, which is causing serious difficulties in the uplands.
The directive concerns the disposal of sheep dip. The Environment Agency charges—the licence fee and the annual charge—are quite heavy. Such straws are small, but their cumulative effect is serious. I hope that the Minister will add that matter to his review and will perhaps consider veterinary inspections, which are now being applied to the export of live animals. I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that, whether people like that trade or not, it is economically important, given the state of the sheep industry, and it underpins what is left of the sector's buoyancy. Such measures may have a rationale in themselves, but their cumulative effect causes difficulties in these circumstances.
If the Government have to produce a financial fiche for their proposals and an environmental impact assessment, I should welcome a level playing field assessment, which would be of great assistance to us all. I hope that the Minister will consider what he can do practically. He said that he will review charges—I welcome that—and I hope that he will urge his colleagues involved in rural development and competition, and those in his own Department who are involved in the implementation of the Berlin agreement, to consult frankly and introduce new measures rapidly. This crisis is not one of the moment; it is beginning to unstitch the whole of rural society.
I know from my own experience that the problems of cities are evident, obvious and striking. Countryside problems are often hidden, unspoken and borne in a grim, personal way. However, they need attention just as badly. We have a resilient and independent society, but there is a real danger that it will soon be unable to cope any more.

Mrs. Janet Dean: I greatly welcome the debate, although I am saddened that, when Conservative Members choose to debate agriculture, as they have on several occasions, they concentrate on blaming the Labour

Government for all its ills. I can only imagine that they do so either to atone for the mistakes that they made in government or because they cannot quite believe that many Labour Members represent rural areas. My constituency has two National Farmers Union branches and a 5b area, and is probably unique because it also contains an urban area with objective 2 status, so structural funds are very important to it.
As I have said in the House previously, I am a farmer's daughter and I lived on a farm until I was 19. It is rich for Conservative Members to presume that Labour Members know nothing about rural matters. I find that quite offensive, especially as the Conservative Government were clearly to blame for the BSE crisis, which is still having a great impact on agriculture and on the agricultural problems that we face. They also did not do much for the rural community when they introduced bus deregulation.
I pay tribute to Ministers for what they have achieved. During the Minister's recent visit to Staffordshire, farmers welcomed his honest way of talking to them and addressing the issues and problems that they raised with him. They also welcome the consultations that the Government have instigated. During the two years I have been meeting farmers in my constituency and making representations to Ministers, many of the issues that have been raised with me have been addressed. Farmers raised the matter of agrimonetary compensation with many of us and Ministers listened.
Ministers acknowledge that the problems of British agriculture are great. I particularly welcome some of the announcements that have been made tonight, because they have addressed issues that have recently been raised with me by farmers in my constituency. The difficulties with small abattoirs are important, especially if we want to develop the farmers markets to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) referred.
I also welcome the Minister's statement that welfare standards will be considered during discussions at the World Trade Organisation. Farmers in my area want a level playing field with the rest of Europe. Welfare standards that apply in this country should be taken on board by the rest of Europe and by the World Trade Organisation. I welcome the fact that we are modifying the charges immediately for abattoirs, with deferment of the specified risk material costs, and that we are examining further the costs of abattoirs in this country compared with those in the rest of Europe. I particularly welcome the consideration of welfare standards with regard to pigmeat.
It is not always the Opposition who raise agricultural issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) secured an Adjournment debate on badgers and TB in Staffordshire. That is of particular concern in the northern parishes—the same northern parishes as form the objective 5b area in my constituency and adjoin the Staffordshire-Derbyshire border. There is concern about the dramatic increase in the number of farms whose herds have been affected. We want that problem to be addressed, and I hope that that area can in the future be one of the trial areas.
There are many problems in the rural communities that Labour Members represent. I believe that Ministers are aware of those problems and are trying to address them. As I said, I find it offensive when Conservative Members imply that those problems all began in May 1997.

Mr. William Thompson: I welcome the Minister's statement on the meat hygiene expenses and the specified risk material costs. Clearly, any such statement has to be welcomed. I also welcome the opportunity to debate the whole farming issue and the crisis in the United Kingdom. The situation is especially critical in Northern Ireland, because of the greater emphasis that we place on farming. Fanning is the largest industry in Northern Ireland, and we have many small farmers.
If I lived on the mainland I would agree entirely with the motion, but because parts of it do not apply to Northern Ireland my party will abstain in the vote. It would be too much for an Opposition party to support the Government amendment, given its talk of approving and of welcoming initiatives; but we appreciate what the Minister has done since taking office. He has visited Northern Ireland and met representatives of the industry there, and I think that when he talked to representatives of the pig industry he understood the difficulties of that industry for the first time.
As for beef, we are able to export it, but the loss of markets is causing us great difficulties, as is the high value of the pound. I understand that exports are now running at about 20 tonnes a week, as against 1,000 tonnes before the crisis. I know that there have been marketing initiatives, but I do not think that exports will reach their former level for some time. We look forward to the introduction of the date-based system, which will provide much more beef for export, and to the end of the ban on beef on the bone, which, I understand, provides cuts that are more attractive to the export industry. I note from a written answer that when Scotland has its Parliament it will be able to lift the ban, and I wonder what impact that will have on the rest of the United Kingdom.
Like the Minister, I am aware of the deep crisis in the pigmeat industry. Many pig farmers are heavily overdrawn; some are suffering from depression, and others are in despair. Although prices have increased somewhat, they are nowhere near high enough to meet running costs: indeed, I think that they are paying only for the meal fed to animals. We have a long way to go yet.
The amendment mentions Agenda 2000. We welcome the extra quota for Northern Ireland, although how it is to be distributed has yet to be decided. I hope that we will have some news about that soon. We also welcome the peace and reconciliation money that we have received. It represents quite a lot of income for Northern Ireland, and to an extent will compensate for the loss of objective 1 status.
One of our greatest problems in regard to farming overall is that we are in Europe, and must make and fight our case there. Because other nations have their own interests, progress is always difficult. Not very much progress has yet been made in reshaping the CAP, but there will never be proper scope for real farming, with proper profitability, until we completely reorganise the CAP movement.
We are under a time limit in the debate, and I shall not delay the House any longer, so that other hon. Members may have their say.

Ms Sally Keeble: I very much welcome the opportunity of speaking in the debate.
The problems in agriculture are profound, and it does no service to the industry to try to simplify its problems and to turn them into party political issues, as the Opposition motion attempts to do. We need a careful strategy that will take the industry through an extremely difficult time.
The strategy should not only take notice of the industry's rightful economic interests, but deal with some of the most topical political concerns of our time—including animal welfare, about which the public feel strongly; food safety and public health, about which the public feel very strongly; environmental issues, about which is there is huge concern; and scientific issues. Current scientific developments—such as those in genetically modified products—could transform agriculture and the way in which it is practised, about which there is great public concern, and on which the Conservative party has been in the forefront in opposition.
All those issues are of profound interest not only to the farming community, but to the wider public. It does no service to anyone to try to draw artificial divides between the two communities—rural and urban, and agriculture and consumers.
The debate has already dealt at great length with the price issue, which is already well known and has been well rehearsed. I very much welcome the measures that my right hon. Friend the Minister has both announced today and taken in the past year.
I should like, extremely briefly, to address a few issues, one of which is the distortions caused by the common agricultural policy—which is perhaps the only issue on which I share profound concern with my predecessor as hon. Member for Northampton, North.
Farm incomes are not related to prices, but are down to subsidies. I have spoken to farmers in the Northamptonshire area who gain half their income from subsidies—which is a measure not only of the distortions caused by the common agricultural policy, and the need to deal with those distortions, but of the effects that exchange rates have had on farm incomes.

Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Keeble: I shall not give way, as we are restrained by time. However, I am sure that I shall have many discussions with the hon. Gentleman on those issues.
The distortions also demonstrate the profound problems of reforming the common agricultural policy. Removing price supports from farmers will be extremely painful for them and will be difficult to effect. Although we all pay lip service to the results of removing price supports, there will be quite serious consequences for the farmers who lose that subsidy—which is the real issue, and which made it so difficult to make progress in Europe on Agenda 2000. Some of the other European Governments realised the impact that subsidy loss would have on farm incomes and felt the pressure from their farming community. It is a real tribute to the skill of our Minister that he was able to keep the debate going and to achieve some movement on an extremely difficult issue.
Although we all pay lip service also to the issue of a level playing field, achieving it is often much more difficult than we realise. The first issue on which we always say that we want a level playing field is animal welfare. I suspect that if some members of the public saw


some of the farming methods that are used, they would ask for higher animal welfare standards. Raising standards in farms abroad will be very difficult to achieve, as will keeping pace with public concerns about animal welfare.
The second issue is food safety. I give notice to my right hon. Friend the Minister that if he slackens provisions too far, I shall be down his throat. I welcome the measure on abattoirs that he has announced tonight, but if we slacken on food safety standards and what happens in the abattoirs, the consequences for public health will be great. I am not talking about BSE, because everybody talks about that. I have seen one of my children laid up in hospital with E. coli 0157, probably as a result of eating infected beef that I did not cook properly. Fillet steak does not come with a warning saying "cook until the juices run clear". I dread to think what the Conservatives would say if it did. With such difficult issues, we must ensure that we pay proper attention to public health, and drive up standards in abattoirs and in meat hygiene. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not compromise on that, particularly with my hon. Friend the Minister of State sitting next to him.
My right hon. Friend has rightly avoided the short-termism that the Conservatives promoted in dealing with the crisis facing agriculture. He has provided targeted aid, but he has adopted a long-term strategy. It may be more difficult to convince the public of such a strategy, but it is undoubtedly right. The Conservatives have supported him in bringing some honesty to the
debate about the future of agriculture. I hope that he will persist with his long-term policies, because they are in the interests of agriculture and of the general public, who look for high standards in all areas of agriculture.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I shall not waste precious seconds giving the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) a lesson in how to cook steak, but I assure her that if she cooks it until the juices run clear, she will have a rotten steak. The idea is to seal it on the outside and to have nice, bloody juice inside. But enough of that.
The Minister talked about candour and honesty. I accept that he is a candid and honest man, and has been so with the farmers. However, his amendment is not so candid or honest, because it says that the Agenda 2000 negotiations will
provide the livestock sector with stability and a secure future.
They manifestly will not.
I suspect that the agreement that the Minister negotiated on 11 March, after many late nights, was a good one. However, he did not reckon with the Prime Minister unpicking it and walking away with an agreement that, far from being a launching pad for something new, will give the farming community many more years of uncertainty, unless the millennium talks at the World Trade Organisation blow it out of the water, which I suspect will happen. Under the deal that the Prime Minister brought back, common agricultural policy spending will increase until 2003, and will start to fall after that only if world markets improve and the CAP can reduce exports of EU surpluses, which is unlikely.
Three points from the deal affect farmers in my constituency. The first is the muddle over the dairy quota. We have heard a lot about that. I understand that officials

are considering extending the dairy quota until 2008, which is two years beyond the competence of the Commission. That will cause great uncertainty for dairy farmers.
On hill beef, the rules for extensification rates have been changed, regardless of the landscape of the farms. Presumably, hill farmers will have to get rid of some of their cows. Perversely, because the headage subsidy is going up, it is providing more of an incentive to the intensive rearing of livestock at the expense of the hill farmers. I should be grateful if the Minister would consider that.
We must also consider the future of the intervention regime which is one of the worst barriers to stability in the beef market. Once again, we do not know whether we shall have an intervention regime that provides a proper safety net. As long as 400,000 tonnes of beef are sitting in storage overhanging the market, investment will always be prejudiced by the fact that that beef could swamp the market at any particular price. It is ridiculous that the EU continues to buy beef in Ireland under the intervention regime and sell it as frozen beef in other EU countries, disturbing their internal beef markets.
I conclude with two points about costs. I welcome the Minister's announcement today about abattoir costs. Will he also consider not increasing the veterinary inspection of sheep for export? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, more than 700,000 lambs have gone out on the Farmers Ferry service. That has made a substantial difference to the market here; doubling up the veterinary inspections and putting in Ministry vets, which will increase costs, will do further damage to the market. I know that the Minister disapproves—perhaps all Labour Members do—but those exports are an important source of income, particularly for hill farmers. We should be encouraging them instead of trying to strangle them with red tape.

Mr. Ian Cawsey: As I have less time than anyone else, I shall be extremely brief. I shall concentrate on the pig industry as I represent Brigg and Goole. Hon. Members will be aware that in north Lincolnshire and the east riding of Yorkshire, pigs are extremely important.
In Britain, pigs are not only a high-quality product, but are produced to welfare standards that are the envy of the world. We should say more about those standards. I pay tribute to the previous Government for introducing the legislation that brought in those welfare standards. As I chair the all-party animal welfare group, I try to embrace all-party persuasions on these matters. I was concerned that hon. Members might say that we should back away from those standards because of difficulties in the sector. Instead, we need to drive standards up and I am sure that we can do that.
Since January, pig prices have increased by about 26 per cent., which is welcome, but they are still too low. Perhaps more importantly, we have opened up a 20 per cent. differential between our price and that charged by our European partners, so perhaps there is something in the idea that we can get a premium for the standards that we achieve here.
That point brings me to the Meat and Livestock Commission. I know what my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, but people within the industry are


sceptical about the standard of service that the MLC has delivered recently. Farmers are required to pay a statutory levy, but although my right hon. Friend is convinced that the MLC is doing a better job—and I was involved in the launch of the charter mark and stood in a supermarket in Goole handing out British pork—and although some things are going the right way, much more needs to be done to win back farmers' confidence in the MLC. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will take that on board.
Tonight, we have discussed European subsidies to the pig industry in other countries. The farmers in my constituency are thoroughly convinced that subsidies are paid in other European countries. I have taken the matter up with MAFF and been told that that is not the case. I am heartened by what my right hon. Friend said—that he is making inquiries—but something has to be done. If we find evidence, we shall pass it on to Ministers and expect them to take action. My right hon. Friend says that he is discussing the matter with other European countries. When he has finished those deliberations, I hope that he will make a statement because there is no confidence whatsoever in the claim that there are no such subsidies—although I hope that that it is the case. It is what we need to help the British sector.
Finally, Liberal Democrat Members mentioned economic and monetary union in the context of agriculture. We need to debate that; we cannot pretend that it is not happening across Europe. My constituency is involved in agriculture and steel. When I meet the National Farmers Union, British Steel and the Iron and Steel Trade Confederation, they all tell me to move forward on this issue. There has never been a more unlikely alliance than that of those three. We will not resolve that matter tonight in this short debate, but we do need to talk seriously about it.

Mr. James Paice: I start by thanking the Minister of State for allowing me the lion's share of the winding-up time. I appreciate his generosity.
Many hon. Members have spoken—and many more wanted to speak—in the debate. The Minister addressed us with his usual friendly and disarming style. He made it clear, as did some Labour Back Benchers, that he wanted to depoliticise the issue. That is fair enough; it has been the cry of Ministers over the years whenever they have known that they are on weak ground. The Government are accountable, and it is the job of the Opposition and the House to hold them to account.
I unreservedly welcome the Minister's decision to defer the specified risk material charges. The Opposition have called for that for many months—as he will concede—and I am pleased that he has reacted as he has. We welcome the study that he has announced, although we wonder why it has taken so long to set it up. We welcome also the talks that he is having with the banks on the state of farmers' accounts.
The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) referred to rural projects, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). These are important, and we believe that the

structure funds are a crucial part of the development of an agricultural policy. The Minister blustered at my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), saying that looking for numbers in the consultation paper was not the right way in which to consider it. However, if one talks to people in the country, the clear impression given by the absence of agriculture from the document is that, somehow, the Government believe that rural communities do not need farming to exist.

Mr. David Prior: Does my hon. Friend agree that the creation of a level playing field is essential for British farming, and that imports produced by methods that are illegal in this country should not be allowed in?

Mr. Paice: I agree, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk made exactly that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk promised that I would say a few words about the sheep industry. It is perfectly true, and very welcome, that new-crop lambs are making more than they did last year, but the collapse from the high point has been much greater than it was last year. We must accept that prospects for prices are not good, and that they are not helped by the extra ewes that were held back because there was no demand for culls last year.
Sheep producers now face more problems. The British Wool Marketing Board has warned this week that wool prices this year may not even cover the cost of shearing, due largely to the strength of sterling. We await the Government's plans for extensification and what is to replace the hill livestock compensatory allowance, and we look forward to their response.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) referred to the Parliamentary Secretary's obsession with live exports. It started with an absurd statement, at a Meat and Livestock Commission lunch a couple of months ago, that the live export trade did not help prices.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): It has not.

Mr. Paice: That is interesting. The hon. Gentleman should look at what his hon. Friend the Minister of State has said in answer to a parliamentary question, where he has clearly refuted such utter nonsense. The trade has made a difference.
The increase in the costs of inspection has been mentioned in a press release entitled "A Blueprint to a Better Future"; it should probably have been called "A Blueprint to No Future". The cost to Farmers Ferry—as has been described—will now be 50p per sheep more than before. The Ministry's own guidance states that that should be recovered from the producer, as if they could afford any more.
The Opposition support high welfare standards for the UK and across Europe, but the new rules smack much more of the Parliamentary Secretary's desire to destroy the trade than to improve welfare. It makes no difference to a sheep whether it is crossing the Minches to be fattened on the Scottish mainland or crossing the channel to be slaughtered. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton


and Ripon mentioned the groundwater regulations, which require a £100 registration fee and further costs for disposal.
Finally on the subject of sheep, our armed forces are still being fed almost exclusively on imported lamb. That underlines an absurdity in the Minister's position. He rightly praises British food, its quality and the welfare standards behind it. He exhorts the supermarkets to promote British meat and claims to have done deals with them, but the Government will not put their money where their mouth is. It is not only lamb that is involved. Half the bacon and ham used by our forces is imported—that is close to £2.5 million-worth of trade. The beef situation is even more daft. Because of the export ban, our forces abroad cannot be fed British beef. Will the Minister give an undertaking that as soon as beef exports can resume, he will ensure that British forces overseas get it?
The Minister dismissed the criticism of his response to the Agriculture Committee's report on pigs. The fact is that across the agriculture industry, his response was seen as complacent irresponsibility. His response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on the issue of specified offal bore little resemblance to the response he gave to the Committee and its recommendations. I can tell the Minister, because he challenged us, that of course we support the farm assurance scheme and anything that will emphasise the quality of British food.
The Minister was also questioned about the growth promoters that have been banned for use in pigs. I find it astonishing that the Government are still prepared to subject British consumers to food that contains residues that could be damaging to health, which is in odd contrast to the beef on the bone issue.
Several hon. Members touched on the issue of TB, which is affecting both dairy and beef producers. The breakdowns have been rising at some 40 per cent. a year for the past two years and the geographical area is spreading. The Minister of State has said over and again that the problem is very important and that resources are not an issue, but the fact remains that nearly 18 months after the Krebs report, only two of the 10 trial areas are up and running. It will be another year before they are all complete. That means that it will be another six years before we get any results. What about the rest of the country during that time? The NFU has estimated that breakdowns cost farmers £27,000 on average, far more than the compensation for the value of the animal, which the Government rightly pay. It has made proposals for dealing with the rest of the country during the study period and we look forward to the Minister's response very soon.
The Conservatives do not claim that all farming's problems are the fault of the Government. They are not responsible for what happened in Russia, for example.

Mr. Martlew: We were not responsible for BSE.

Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman goes on about BSE and that has been the theme throughout this debate. Beef prices today are some 8p a kilo lower than they were three weeks after the announcement in March 1996. They collapsed after that announcement, stayed at that level for a year and have now gone further down. It was not the previous Government who put a cap on the amount of 30-month scheme money for cull cows: it was this

Government. They have made a bad situation worse. Since Labour came to office, cattle prices are down, lamb is down, pigs are down and milk is down. If that were not enough, the Government have heaped cost upon cost on the industry, including meat hygiene charges—not the ones that the Minister has, thankfully, deferred today, but ones that they previously implemented—cattle passports, groundwater charges, the costs of deboning and the fuel price increases. We have had two emergency Christmas packages and one of them has not yet been finally paid out.
The Minister has spent nine months with his arm around farmers' shoulders saying that he wants to listen and to learn, but the good will that he has engendered will not last for ever. Tonight, we have tried to provide some of the answers. It is time that the Minister reacted to what he has learned. There is an old English saying that fine words butter no bread. Under Labour, farmers cannot afford the bread. It is time to deliver.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The debate has been useful and interesting. The United Kingdom livestock population—cattle, sheep and pigs—totals more than the human population. It varies over the season, but amounts to around 65 million.
Let me spell out the subsidies that the taxpayer pays to the livestock industry: for 1998, beef special premium was £248 million, suckler cow premium was £250 million, sheep annual premium was estimated at £371 million and hill livestock compensatory allowances were £109 million, and they are estimated to be £171 million for 1999. The industry is highly dependent on subsidies. The idea that the Government are not providing taxpayers' money is abject nonsense.
Several hon. Members raised the issue of bovine tuberculosis, and we await with interest the report of the Select Committee on Agriculture. The Government will respond as quickly as we can, and we shall take all the report's recommendations seriously. The Committee has done the House a service in educating many hon. Members about the seriousness of an extremely complex issue. Any attempt to discuss that issue simplistically conflicts with reality.
To the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who has just wound himself up, I must say that when the beef ban is lifted and British beef can be exported, we will make it a priority to supply British beef to our armed forces. As the Prime Minister said today, European Commission inspectors visited UK abattoirs, farms and the centre in Gloucester that will run the date-based export scheme during a five-day stay last week. They have promised to respond as quickly as possible, and that usually takes about 20 working days. We are doing our best to pre-empt any questions that the inspectors may raise by giving them all the information that they request as soon as we can.
We cannot say when beef will be exported. It will happen as soon as possible. At least one plant—possibly two—is ready to go when it has been approved under the admittedly complex rules of the date-based export scheme. Other abattoirs are queueing up to see what happens.
The ban on beef on the bone has been raised as if it were a simple matter. People have died, and are dying. I regret that more people will die as a result of new variant


Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. We are guided by the advice of the chief medical officer. Woe betide any Minister who ignores such advice. We have promised to review the ban in the summer, six months after the advice given in February. We shall again act on the CMO's advice.
Abattoirs were a continuing theme of the debate, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made an important announcement. I accept that some abattoirs have closed under the Labour Government: there are about 350 in England, compared with 384 in December 1996. In 1979, however, there were 975 abattoirs. What we heard tonight resembled the old myth about grammar schools: in fact, more closed under Mrs. T than ever did under a Labour Minister. We can never match the number of abattoirs closed by the Tories, because there are not enough left.
We have no policy to close abattoirs. Our policy is to raise standards in the industry and to make sure that the taxpayer does not pay a disproportionate share of the cost of necessary controls. That is what we seek to do in the announcements made by my right hon. Friend today and in our inquiry into the industry over the coming weeks.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes 319.

Division No. 150]
[9.59 pm


AYESb>


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Allan, Richard
Duncan, Alan


Amess, David
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Evans, Nigel


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Fabricant, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fallon, Michael


Baker, Norman
Fearn, Ronnie


Baldry, Tony
Flight, Howard


Ballard, Jackie
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bercow, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Dr Liam


Blunt, Crispin
Fraser, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Garnier, Edward


Brady, Graham
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Brand, Dr Peter
Gibb, Nick


Brazier, Julian
Gill, Christopher


Breed, Colin
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Green, Damian


Burnett, John
Greenway, John


Burns, Simon
Grieve, Dominic


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Hammond, Philip



Hancock, Mike


Cash, William
Hawkins, Nick


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hayes, John



Heald, Oliver


Chope, Christopher
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Collins, Tim
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Colvin, Michael
Horam, John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cotter, Brian
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Cran, James
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Hunter, Andrew


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)





Jenkin, Bernard
Sanders, Adrian


Keetch, Paul
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Kirkwood, Archy
Spicer, Sir Michael


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Spring, Richard


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Steen, Anthony


Lansley, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Leigh, Edward
Stunell, Andrew


Letwin, Oliver
Swayne, Desmond


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Syms, Robert


Lidington, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Livsey, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Loughton, Tim
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Luff, Peter
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Townend, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Trend, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tyler, Paul


Maples, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Mates, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Walter, Robert


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Wardle, Charles


Nicholls, Patrick
Waterson, Nigel


Norman, Archie
Webb, Steve


Oaten, Mark
Wells, Bowen



Welsh, Andrew


Ottaway, Richard
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Page, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Paice, James
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Paterson, Owen
Wilkinson, John


Pickles, Eric
Willetts, David


Prior, David
Wilshire, David


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Rendel, David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Robathan, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)



Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ruffley, David
Mrs. Caroline Spelman and


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Mr. Stephen Day.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Allen, Graham
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Buck, Ms Karen


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Burden, Richard


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Butler, Mrs Christine


Ashton, Joe
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Atherton, Ms Candy
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Atkins, Charlotte
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Austin, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Banks, Tony
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Barnes, Harry
Cann, Jamie


Barron, Kevin
Casale, Roger


Battle, John
Caton, Martin


Bayley, Hugh
Cawsey, Ian


Beard, Nigel
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Begg, Miss Anne
Chaytor, David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clapham, Michael


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bermingham, Gerald



Blackman, Liz
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Blizzard, Bob
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Boateng, Paul
Clelland, David


Borrow, David
Clwyd, Ann


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Coaker, Vernon


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bradshaw, Ben
Coleman, Iain


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Colman, Tony






Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hood, Jimmy


Corbett, Robin
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hope, Phil


Corston, Ms Jean
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cranston, Ross
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Crausby, David
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cummings, John
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Hurst, Alan



Hutton, John


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Illsley, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darvill, Keith
Jamieson, David


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jenkins, Brian


Davidson Ian
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)



Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Denham, John
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dismore, Andrew



Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dowd, Jim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Drew, David
Keeble, Ms Sally


Drown, Ms Julia
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Edwards, Huw
Kemp, Fraser


Efford, Clive
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Khabra, Piara S


Etherington, Bill
Kidney, David


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fitzpatrick, Jim
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Flint, Caroline
Kingham, Ms Tess


Flynn, Paul
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Follett, Barbara
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lepper, David


Fyfe, Maria
Leslie, Christopher


Galloway, George
Levitt, Tom


Gapes, Mike
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gardiner, Barry
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Linton, Martin


Gibson, Dr Ian
Livingstone, Ken


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Love, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
McAvoy, Thomas


Goggins, Paul
McCabe, Steve


Golding, Mrs Llin
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)



Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McDonnell, John


Grocott, Bruce
McIsaac, Shona


Grogan, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gunnell, John
McNamara, Kevin


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McNulty, Tony


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
MacShane, Denis


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McWalter, Tony


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McWilliam, John


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mallaber, Judy


Hepburn, Stephen
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Heppell, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hesford, Stephen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hill, Keith
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hinchliffe, David
Martlew, Eric


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Maxton, John





Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan



Miller, Andrew
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Snape, Peter


Moran, Ms Margaret
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morley, Elliot
Spellar, John


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mountford, Kali
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mudie, George
Steinberg, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Stevenson, George


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stinchcombe, Paul


O'Hara, Eddie
Stott, Roger


O'Neill, Martin
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Organ, Mrs Diana
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Stringer, Graham


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pearson, Ian
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Perham, Ms Linda



Pike, Peter L
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Plaskitt, James
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pond, Chris
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pope, Greg
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)



Timms, Stephen


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Tipping, Paddy


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Truswell, Paul


Prosser, Gwyn
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Purchase, Ken
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Quinn, Lawrie
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Radice, Giles
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rammell, Bill
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rapson, Syd
Walley, Ms Joan


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Ward, Ms Claire


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Wareing, Robert N


Rooker, Jeff
White, Brian


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Roy, Frank



Ruane, Chris
Winnick, David


Ruddock, Joan
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wise, Audrey


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wood, Mike



Savidge, Malcolm
Worthington, Tony


Sawford, Phil
Wray, James


Sedgemore, Brian
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Shaw, Jonathan
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sheerman, Barry
Wyatt, Derek


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert



Shipley, Ms Debra
Tellers for the Noes:


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Mr. Clive Betts and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Robert Ainsworth

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 160.

Division No. 151]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary


Allen, Graham
Ashton, Joe


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Atherton, Ms Candy


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Atkins, Charlotte






Austin, John
Dismore, Andrew


Banks, Tony
Dobbin, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Barron, Kevin
Doran, Frank


Battle, John
Dowd, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Drew, David


Beard, Nigel
Drown, Ms Julia


Begg, Miss Anne
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Edwards, Huw


Benton, Joe
Efford, Clive


Bermingham, Gerald
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Blackman, Liz
Etherington, Bill


Blears, Ms Hazel
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Blizzard, Bob
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Boateng, Paul
Flint, Caroline


Borrow, David
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Follett, Barbara


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradshaw, Ben
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Galloway, George


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gapes, Mike


Buck, Ms Karen
Gardiner, Barry


Burden, Richard
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gibson, Dr Ian


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cann, Jamie
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Casale, Roger
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cawsey, Ian
Grocott, Bruce


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Grogan, John


Chaytor, David
Gunnell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet



Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heppell, John


Clelland, David
Hesford, Stephen


Clwyd, Ann
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Coaker, Vernon
Hill, Keith


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Coleman, Iain
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Colman, Tony
Hood, Jimmy


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corbett, Robin
Hope, Phil


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hopkins, Kelvin


Corston, Ms Jean
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cranston, Ross
Hoyle, Lindsay


Crausby, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hurst, Alan


Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Iddon, Dr Brian



Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dalyell, Tam
Jamieson, David


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jenkins, Brian


Darvill, Keith
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davidson, Ian



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dean, Mrs Janet



Denham, John
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)





Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Plaskitt, James


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pond, Chris


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pope, Greg


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Prosser, Gwyn


Kemp, Fraser
Purchase, Ken


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Khabra, Piara S
Quinn, Lawrie


Kidney, David
Radice, Giles


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rammell, Bill


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rapson, Syd


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rooker, Jeff


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Laxton, Bob
Rowlands, Ted


Lepper, David
Roy, Frank


Leslie, Christopher
Ruane, Chris


Levitt, Tom
Ruddock, Joan


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Ryan, Ms Joan


Linton, Martin
Savidge, Malcolm


Livingstone, Ken
Sawford, Phil


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sedgemore, Brian


Love, Andrew
Shaw, Jonathan


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheerman, Barry


McCabe, Steve
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Shipley, Ms Debra


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)



Skinner, Dennis


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McDonnell, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McNamara, Kevin



McNulty, Tony
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McWilliam, John
Snape, Peter


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Soley, Clive


Mallaber, Judy
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Spellar, John


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stevenson, George


Martlew, Eric
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Meale, Alan
Stinchcombe, Paul


Merron, Gillian
Stott, Roger


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Miller, Andrew
Stringer, Graham


Mitchell, Austin
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Moffatt, Laura
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Moran, Ms Margaret



Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mountford, Kali
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Mudie, George
Timms, Stephen


Mullin, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Truswell, Paul


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


O'Hara, Eddie
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


O'Neill, Martin
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Vis, Dr Rudi


Palmer, Dr Nick
Walley, Ms Joan


Pearson, Ian
Ward, Ms Claire


Pendry, Tom
Wareing, Robert N


Perham, Ms Linda
White, Brian






Wicks, Malcolm
Wray, James


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)



Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Winnick, David
Wyatt, Derek


Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)



Wise, Audrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wood, Mike
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Clive Betts




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Green, Damian


Allan, Richard
Greenway, John


Amess, David
Grieve, Dominic


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Hammond, Philip


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hancock, Mike


Baker, Norman
Hawkins, Nick


Baldry, Tony
Hayes, John


Ballard, Jackie
Heald, Oliver


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Bercow, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Blunt, Crispin
Horam, John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Brady, Graham
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Brand, Dr Peter
Hunter, Andrew


Brazier, Julian
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Breed, Colin
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jenkin, Bernard


Browning, Mrs Angela
Keetch, Paul


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Burnett, John
Key, Robert


Burns, Simon
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Butterfill, John
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Kirkwood, Archy



Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Cash, William
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lansley, Andrew



Leigh, Edward


Chope, Christopher
Letwin, Oliver


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Colvin, Michael
Lidington, David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Livsey, Richard


Cotter, Brian
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cran, James
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Loughton, Tim


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Luff, Peter


Day, Stephen
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Duncan, Alan
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, Nigel
Maples, John


Fabricant, Michael
Mates, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Fearn, Ronnie
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Flight, Howard
Nicholls, Patrick


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Norman, Archie


Foster, Don (Bath)
Oaten, Mark


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Ottaway, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam
Page, Richard


Fraser, Christopher
Paice, James


Gale, Roger
Paterson, Owen


Garnier, Edward
Pickles, Eric


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Prior, David


Gibb, Nick
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gill, Christopher
Rendel, David


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Robathan, Andrew


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)





Ruffley, David
Trend, Michael


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tyler, Paul


Sanders, Adrian
Tyrie, Andrew


Sayeed, Jonathan
Viggers, Peter


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Walter, Robert


Shepherd, Richard
Wardle, Charles


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Waterson, Nigel


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Webb, Steve


Spicer, Sir Michael
Wells, Bowen


Spring, Richard
Welsh, Andrew


Steen, Anthony
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Streeter, Gary
Whittingdale, John


Stunell, Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Swayne, Desmond
Wilkinson, John


Syms, Robert
Willetts, David


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wilshire, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Sir Teddy




Tonge, Dr Jenny
Tellers for the Noes:


Townend, John
Mrs. Caroline Spelman and


Tredinnick, David
Mr. Tim Collins.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises the difficulties faced by many in the livestock sector; welcomes the Government's strong commitment to the livestock sector in the United Kingdom; endorses the efforts the Government has made to secure the lifting of the ban on the worldwide export of British beef; approves of the steps which the Government has taken since May 1997 to support the beef and sheep industry via EU agri-monetary compensation; welcomes the initiatives the Government has taken to promote the pig industry; recognises the extra support to the livestock sector, particularly hill and upland producers via substantially increased hill livestock compensatory allowances, announced in November 1998; and welcomes the recently-agreed reshaping of the Common Agricultural Policy as part of the Agenda 2000 negotiations, which seeks to provide the livestock sector with stability and a secure future.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

SUPREME COURT OF ENGLAND AND WALES

That the draft Civil Procedure (Modification of Enactments) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 13th April, be approved.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Question agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT (MAY)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),

That this House, at its rising on Friday 30th April, do adjourn till Tuesday 4th May.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Question agreed to.

Lancashire Police (Stephen Lawman)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Mr. David Borrow: This is the first time that I have had the privilege of speaking in an Adjournment debate. I regret having to raise the matters that I intend to raise on the Floor of the House this evening, but they are of serious concern to my constituents in Lancashire and ought to be placed on the record of the House of Commons. However, I recognise at the outset that there is probably only a limited amount that my hon. Friend the Minister of State can do when he responds to my contribution.
The issue starts with a constituent of mine, Mrs. Lorraine Sharrock, who lives in Lostock Hall. For three or four years in the mid-1990s, she received a series of malicious telephone calls at her home and her place of work. Despite the fact that she changed her telephone number and went ex-directory, and changed the number of her workplace telephone, the calls persisted. She contacted Lancashire police, which carried out an, investigation.
Eventually, on 7 July 1998, Stephen Lawman was convicted of making eight malicious phone calls to Mrs. Sharrock between March and July 1996. Those were a sample of calls that the police were able to track down and prove before the court. Mr. Stephen Lawman was at that time a detective inspector working in the section dealing with the tracing of malicious phone calls at the Lancashire police headquarters at Hutton, which is also in my constituency. One can imagine my constituent's concern and horror when the very people to whom she went to seek to track the source of the malicious phone calls ended up harbouring the person who was responsible for them.
Stephen Lawman appealed against his conviction at Preston magistrates court, and Lancashire police decided in their wisdom that he should continue to serve as a police officer. He was not suspended, although he was moved to other duties.
In the autumn of last year, I had a meeting with David Smith, assistant chief constable of Lancashire police, and in charge of discipline, to express my concern at the fact that, despite Mr. Lawman's conviction, he had not been suspended. I recognise that it would have been very difficult for the police to change their decision following the conviction, as an appeal hearing was pending, but felt it my duty to express my concern, and that of many of my constituents, at such a decision.
In February, Mr. Lawman withdrew his appeal, and Lancashire police suspended him from duty pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings. That hearing was held in front of the chief constable, Pauline Clare, on 16 March. After that hearing, the chief constable announced the decision that Detective Inspector Lawman would be demoted to the post of sergeant. He would therefore continue to serve as a police officer in Lancashire—and a senior police officer at that.
I must make it clear that, at that point, I spoke very strongly of my abhorrence at the decision of Lancashire police and the fact that it undermined the confidence of many people in the police force. Many women in Lancashire in particular feel that their position has been

undermined, given that a police officer working in the very department responsible for tracing malicious phone calls was convicted of making such calls, but continued to serve as a senior officer of Lancashire police.
I recognise that the regulations in the disciplinary code have been followed and that the decision probably cannot be overturned or challenged in any way. I now understand that the time limits for Sergeant Lawman—as he now is—to appeal against that decision have expired. That appeal, had it taken place, would have been to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is also a Lancashire Member of Parliament.
I raise this matter to put on the record my serious concern at what has happened. For more than 22 years before I came to this place, I served as an officer of various tribunals in the north-west of England, dealing with appeals on local taxation. Over those years, I must have dealt with thousands of appeals, and helped to give advice to tribunals and draft reasons for decisions in thousands of cases. I recognise that, from time to time, rogue decisions are inevitable in any judicial process.
I have tried to find out the reasons for the chief constable's decision and I was read a transcript of it yesterday, by one of the solicitors at Lancashire police headquarters. I must point out that I tried to arrange a meeting with the chief constable and the chair of the police authority, but failed to do so.
One of the reasons for the chief constable allowing Stephen Lawman to continue as a serving officer in Lancashire is that he has a wife and family who should not be punished for his actions. I should be interested to know whether that is a valid factor to take into account in disciplinary hearings, because the implication is that an officer without children, or who is not married, would not be dealt with in the same way as other officers.
I have serious concerns about the signal that has been sent to my constituents. I met Mrs. Sharrock and her husband on Friday evening to explain what I would be talking about tonight. She is still very angry and upset about the way in which the police have dealt with this case. She remains concerned about what work Sergeant Lawman is doing, as he is still working at Lancashire police headquarters.
I have spoken to a number of police officers in the past few weeks. Every officer with whom I have discussed the case is appalled and disgusted by the decision and feels, as I do, that it reflects badly on them as police officers. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a number of speeches in the autumn that made it clear that he was concerned that disciplinary proceedings for police officers should be firm and fair, but we should send to the general public the signal that they can continue to have confidence in the police, and that wrongdoing in the police service will not be tolerated and will be dealt with most severely.
The Home Office is reviewing disciplinary procedures within the police service. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether the circumstances of the Stephen Lawman case can be examined in detail by the Department to see what lessons can be learned. I should like the code of practice used by police authorities and chief police officers to deal with disciplinary offences to be clear, because I am very concerned. I have spent a lot of time looking into this case, and there may be others that have been dealt with similarly.
One of the things that have saddened me in the past few weeks is the comment, which has been made by a number of my constituents, that the police look after their own. I do not believe that that is true in the majority of cases, and Lancashire police would be angry if that were thought to be so. However, this particular case, and the way that it has been handled, has sent all the wrong signals—about the police force, about women making complaints about how cases have been dealt with and about the seriousness with which the police service takes such crimes.
The making of malicious phone calls to women is not a trivial crime, even though it may be dealt with by a fine in a magistrates court. Such calls cause a great deal of distress. Although it was proved in court that eight calls were made by Stephen Lawman over three or four months, calls were made over three or four years and there were many of them.
My constituent's dissatisfaction with the outcome of the case is profound and I feel that it is my duty, as her Member of Parliament, to ensure that that is placed on the record in the House of Commons.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) has exercised a time-honoured right to raise a matter of serious concern in his constituency on the Floor of the House. Anyone taking the trouble, as I have done, to acquaint themselves with the facts of this case will understand why he has chosen to take this course of action, which he has exercised with great care, dignity, balance and moderation, and he is to be commended.
The conduct of former Detective Inspector Lawman was appalling. There can be no excuse for what he did. I can find no mitigating circumstance. Anyone concerned, as the Government have to be, with the reputation and integrity of the police service would be concerned about this case. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is acquainted with the facts of the case, and shares my concern. The Government are absolutely determined to stem any erosion of public confidence in the police service. That is why, at the beginning of this month, the Home Secretary introduced measures to modernise and make more effective the procedures for dealing with police discipline.
Lawman's case was dealt with under the old procedure, but some of the issues that it raised show the relevance of the new measures that we have introduced. We cannot say whether the outcome would have been different, because the operation of the discipline procedure is a matter for chief constables. They are entrusted with the responsibility of making a judgment about whether an officer is guilty of a discipline charge and what punishment should be imposed.
It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the punishment imposed on Mr. Lawman by the chief constable of the Lancashire constabulary. I shall ensure, however, that she reads what has been said in this debate, so that she is fully aware of the concerns that have been expressed. At the same time, I shall invite her to write to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble with any comments that she thinks may help him to understand her decision.
Before I say more about the new discipline procedures, I think it would be right, albeit at the risk of repetition, for me to go back over some of the details in

Mr. Lawman's case that have been provided to my officials by Lancashire constabulary. As I said, these issues clearly show how the new measures will make a real difference.
Lawman was convicted of the criminal offence of using public telecommunications systems for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, under section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. The behaviour that he was charged with was restricted to calls made during the last 12 months of the total period of conduct complained of by Mrs. Sharrock. That is because, under section 103 of the 1984 Act, proceedings for an offence under section 43 must be brought within 12 months of the offence.
I understand that, during the 12-month period, nine calls to Mrs. Sharrock were traced by British Telecommunications engineers back to Mr. Lawman's home number, and that these were silent calls. Such calls have an insidious nature all of their own. Mr. Lawman received the heaviest penalty available for an offence under section 43, which is a fine of £1,000. He was also ordered to pay £350 in costs.
The nine silent telephone calls were only part of the matters of which Mrs. Sharrock complained. Other telephone calls, of an offensive nature, were alleged to have been made before the 12-month period. Lancashire constabulary investigated these allegations and put the evidence before the Crown Prosecution Service, whose responsibility it is to decide whether to institute criminal proceedings.
Although section 43 of the 1984 Act was not an option because of the time limit, another possibility was an offence of actual bodily harm based on psychological harm. The Crown Prosecution Service decided, however, that there was insufficient evidence for the purposes of bringing proceedings. The House will appreciate that I am unable to comment on that decision.
Following conviction on 7 July 1998, Mr. Lawman indicated that he would appeal. On 31 July 1998, he was charged with the discipline offence of criminal conduct, in that he had been found guilty of the criminal offence under the Telecommunications Act 1984. On 16 February 1999, he abandoned his appeal, and two days later he was suspended from duty.
There is a wide power to suspend an officer under both the old police discipline procedure and the new one. In the event of an allegation from which it appears that an officer may have committed a disciplinary or criminal offence, he can be suspended at least until the disciplinary matter is resolved. The reason given for not suspending Mr. Lawman earlier is, in effect, that he had an outstanding appeal. The chief constable may want to consider elaborating on that when writing to my hon. Friend.
On 16 March 1999, Mr. Lawman appeared before the chief constable to answer the discipline charge. He pleaded guilty, and the chief constable reduced his rank to that of sergeant. As I have said, responsibility for making the decision rested with the chief constable alone, and I cannot comment on it.
The disciplinary charge brought against Mr. Lawman was confined to the matters that caused his criminal conviction. The deputy chief constable decided that it would be inappropriate to bring additional disciplinary charges against Mr. Lawman in relation to Mrs. Sharrock's


other charges. A factor in that decision was the provision in section 104 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that an officer brought before the courts on a criminal charge should not thereafter face a disciplinary charge that was, in substance, the same. The reason for that provision was avoidance of what is known as "double jeopardy"—trying someone twice for the same offence.
In hearing the disciplinary charge against Mr. Lawman, the chief constable therefore had before her only matters relating to Mr. Lawman's criminal conviction, not Mrs. Sharrock's other complaints. Whether the chief constable would have imposed a different punishment if the substance of the discipline charge had been wider cannot be known. The "double jeopardy" rule was undoubtedly a factor, however, and was one of the things that we changed at the beginning of this month in the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999, made under the Police Act 1996.
We have lowered the standard of proof required at a disciplinary hearing from the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" to the civil standard of "on the balance of probabilities". I hope my hon. Friend will accept that that in itself makes the procedure more effective, but it has also made it possible to remove the "double jeopardy" restriction. That means that, in a case in which criminal proceedings against an officer are restricted to matters where the evidence is sufficient to meet the higher standard of proof, it will in future be possible to charge him with other related matters where the evidence is sufficient only to meet the lower standard of proof. Forces can now bring discipline charges that reflect a wider pattern of misconduct. That option was not available under the old procedure, when Mr. Lawman's case was dealt with.
Another new measure is the fast-track procedure for dealing swiftly with police officers who are caught committing serious criminal offences. Cases under that procedure will be heard within six weeks of being identified, in advance of criminal proceedings.
I understand that Mrs. Sharrock has been through a distressing experience, and feels deeply about the way in which Mr. Lawman has been dealt with. I abhor the criminal conduct of this officer. He has not only caused Mrs. Sharrock deep distress, but brought shame on himself and cast a cloud over the decent, hard-working officers with whom he served. No one should for a moment forget the enormous responsibilities with which police officers are burdened, or the fact that the overwhelming majority discharge them with honour and distinction. Mr. Lawman did not. The fact that he continues to serve among those officers who day in and day out do, however surprising it may be, is—as I am sure my hon. Friend will understand—a matter for the chief constable alone. The Government have shown, and will continue to show, absolute commitment to effective police discipline by making available to chief officers improved machinery to deal with individuals who have shown themselves unfit to remain as police officers, should they choose to use it. In this instance, the chief constable chose not to use the powers available to her.
There are lessons to be learned from this case, and we shall reflect on them. Mrs. Sharrock, in the meanwhile, has our deepest sympathy and understanding, and our commitment to ensure that the lessons of her case are learned and acted upon.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eleven o 'clock.